





















































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































* ^> 






'b V 



^P• 


• -{5 i? ° 

^ ‘ *'' . • • .X‘ *" ’ ‘^o^° V' “ ■ '’’‘v'"’^ . . . ..\ 

> /^Vav < 5 ,^^^- 5 . 

oOJL"*.*^, •i*’' .•‘'*» ,0^ c»"*» "^O a'*’' 






’/ o') %. %' 

"’■ o'^ .--^ % •-“’' 


#> V •I*®-' 


^Cp 9 * 




A ^ o 



> 





o- "b. , 0 ’' 


• ’i* ^ 

^ •'o''. 7 ** ♦ 

I»». 








V 


4 ' ■' ''*ft <*0^ 0 ® * * >» '^Q 

* -'^-% C,' 

• v* 0 ' ®< 

h »v ’ '■ .. c-^x//iu jy > ^ ^ 

. v,h ytZ/Jr^ * r\ ^ ••%'i\vc^ ' bw 

v' •>’ • ®-* ^ ,0^ .••*'.. -vN f*o ^ 

V*" •»• ^.z •‘^■•- .-iM;- ’ 

c,^ '^n 

V * 


♦ -j."^ °o 



• <W^ »' 





c . 

, i-°’V -e 5 <^ * 

» ^ <L>^ O 4 . O ' j 

"’■ .... •k , °.^ '•’’•\<^° % 

V' 0 ^ • ®. ^ . 0 ^ 4 • • - 


'^ '••’* A<^ 'o’.-;- , 0 ' 

•>* 4 *^ ‘'JKUM^i:^ * ^ « ' 



O/) 



.x^ /Av;*. V 


' ♦«»o« O 

^ ^ Ik ’ • ®. c> 





▼jV ^ ^ ^ ^ < ^lY •* '*M«//IVL»" 1 



^ A ^ 
o V • 


< o 

L^ O 


o > 


• • • \ ^ 



"°^*^*’/ V 

•I-.”' < 5 ^ V) .•^'. '> 




A 
^ V 


<” <r. 'oA- .o'* 

* ^ Or e. ® " * 

't, c° .‘ 



• I *1 




' V 

, %■ *•'’*’ A°^ 'V'-.'.'o’ ■^T' _ 

• <* ^ % V /T /ygjg^'. 'iii. > ♦’j{\Va:<' < 

® • A'^n •* O aV-^ 

♦ 7 * 5 ^. A <>v ♦ 7 ‘«^ A 

'\> C°^ '^°-> .,■>*■ t-'" 

o * 0 ‘({T/Z^ , ' 5 ^ ^ % 

• ♦ t(v\ sk/ h, xa a * f S • 


4 ^ A 

V 





'^5 




'O , , * , 0 ^ 

c® '^o 

•- *^^ 0 ^ « 



lV-^^ 



® A^ ^ o 

* 7 X 7 * A o'* 

.0 • ^fv »® * 





«. 

A^'^ A'^f* A^"^ 

* Av A? 'Cok • * av ' 

* A . <i. A 

'O -Jl^ . 6 ^ 0 ® " • ♦ A^ 

‘ V 






A. »■ . ^ .S - • . A^ ♦ •* 


B N 















I 


f 





I 






\ 




I 

I 



t . 


I .i 



I > 




*< 


I I 


If 



» 


1 





I 






1 ^. 


^ aI . 



N 

I 


Jki. 


J 


k 



M . A 




^ -- 

)' 

Superiority 

of ■ 

■ -i 

Democratic 

Administration 



By D. F. PATTERSON 









SUPERIORITY 


OF 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION 


D. 




F. PATTERSON 



/ 


NEW YORK 

PRESS OF J. J. LITTLE & CO 
10 TO 20 Astor Place 
1888 




Entered according to the Act of Congress, In the year 1888, 
By D. F. PATTEKSON, 

in the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. 


PKEFACE. 


Londojt, Paris, Berlin, New York, and other great estab¬ 
lished centers of population, intelligence and trade, have no 
need to advertise their advantages in order to attract pur¬ 
chasers of city lots, or to induce people to locate within their 
limits. Such practice is left to the hopeful people interested 
in promoting the paper cities of the West. It may be upon 
the same principle that no Democrat has undertaken to pre¬ 
pare a book enumerating and illustrating the great achieve¬ 
ments of his party in advancing the United States from ^^a 
comparatively feeble nation, lying between the Atlantic and 
Mississippi, to a continental power of assured strength and 
boundless promise. ” 

Whatever the reason may be, the fact is, that whilst nu- * 
merous books, written from an anti-Democratic stand-point, 
have been published within recent years, the public has been 
furnished with no book, to the author’s knowledge, in which 
an attempt has been made to compare the measures and pol¬ 
icies of Democratic administrations with those of other par¬ 
ties, and to point out the superiority of Democratic admin¬ 
istrations. Duriug the long and singularly prosperous period 
of almost uninterrupted Democratic administration, such 
book was unnecessary, as the people were daily witnesses of 
the advantages they enjoyed ; but a change came in 1861 , 
and for a period of twenty-four years the Democrats were ex¬ 
cluded from the management of the government, and sub¬ 
jected to a round of abuse such as no other party ever with¬ 
stood. During that period thousands of foreigners came into 
our country, and thousands of boys grew up to be voting 
citizens, none of whom ever realized that government by 



4 


PREFACE. 


the people for the people ever existed outside of vote-catch¬ 
ing party platforms and stump speeches. Such of them 
as depended on Eepublican newspapers and campaign docu¬ 
ments for political information, were carefully indoctrinated 
with the belief that the Democratic party was utterly destitute 
of patriotism, statesmanship, or any sort of capacity for gov¬ 
ernment, and that its leaders were a dangerous band of con¬ 
spirators constantly plotting some terrible schemes of public 
mischief. As tlie Eepublican masses rarely ever read Demo¬ 
cratic newspapers, and never were allowed to hear anything 
but evil about the Democratic party, it is not surprising that 
they were frightened into line for many years by ‘‘ cam¬ 
paign scares,” and prophecies of untold disasters in the event 
of Democratic supremacy. They never heard of the great 
achievements of the Democratic party, or that they were in 
any way indebted to it for the liberties they enjoyed, or the 
unexampled prosperity of the country they inhabited. 

It is the design of the author to bring to the notice and 
knowledge of the reader the circumstances which led to the 
organization of the Democratic party, nearly a century ago, 
and the attitude of that party towards the principal public 
measures and movements that have resulted in good or evil 
to the American people. Organized as it was within a few 
years after the government came into being, and in control 
of the government almost without interruption during the 
first sixty years of the present century, it cannot be other¬ 
wise than that the Democratic party must have exercised a 
powerful influence in controlling the destinies of the United 
States ; and it is matter of simple justice that, amongst the 
many political publications presented to the public, one, at 
least, should present the claims of the Democratic party, even 
if it should be meagerly and imperfectly done. A careful 
rexiew of the policies and measures of the government, first 
under the Federalists, next under the Democrats, and then 
for twenty-four years under the Eepublicans, will satisfy the 
intelligent reader that the old Federalist and the modern 


PREFACE, 


5 


Republican parties are substantially the same in principles 
and policies, and that there is a fundamental and radical 
difference between them and the principles and policies of 
the Democratic party. It will be equally apparent, when the 
measures and policies promoted by the rival parties are com¬ 
pared and contrasted, that there has been an immense supe¬ 
riority in the Democratic administration of the government. 

In the preparation of this little volume, the author has 
made liberal quotations from works written from an anti- 
Democratic standpoint, and notably from the great work of 
the Hon. James G. Blaine entitled Twenty Years of Con¬ 
gress,” and popularly known as ‘^Blaine’s Bookj” also from 
the work entitled ‘^American Politics,” by Hon. Thomas V 
Cooper, Chairman of the Republican State Committee of 
Pennsylvania; and from the political articles of Prof. Alex¬ 
ander Johnston published in Lalor’s Cyclopaedia,” as well as 
his work on American Politics ; ” also from the ^'Statesman’s 
Manual.” The writings of these authors must be accepted as 
the testimony of adverse witnesses, and for that reason their 
admissions have been quoted in support of the claims herein 
made for the Democratic party. The introduction contains 
charges made in the form of general statements, many of 
which are not flattering to the Republican party ; but when 
the reader proceeds to a consideration of the details contained 
in the several chapters of the book, he will find that no 
charge has been made recklessly, nor without ample proofs, 
derived, for the most part, from ofiBcial documents and the 
testimony of recognized Republicans. 

The author makes no pretense of entire freedom from parti¬ 
san bias. He believes that the American people are indebted 
to his party for republican government, for enlargement of 
the boundaries of the United States, and, in large measure, 
for the prosperity of his country at home and its honor 
abroad. Entertaining such belief, he acknowledges his lia¬ 
bility to exaggerate the merits of his own party and to subject 
its adversaries to unjudicial judgment; therefore, he submits 


6 


PREFACE. 


his inferences and conclusions from the standpoint of a Dem¬ 
ocrat by inheritance and from conviction. Care has been 
taken to avoid misstatements of facts; and if any such have 
been unintentionally made, he would gladly acknowledge and 
correct the errors. With the hope that his labors may lead 
to a careful and candid study of our political history, the 
author submits this little volume to the public. 

Pittsburgh, Pa , July 20, 1888. 


CONTENTS 


PAG£ 

INTRODUCTION . 11 

CHAPTER I. 

THE MONARCHICAL POLICY OF THE FEDERALISTS. 29 

CHAPTER II. 

ORGANIZATION OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. 39 

CHAPTER III. 

THE JEFFERSONIAN-DEMOCRATIC DOCTRINE. 46 

CHAPTER IV. 

THE UNITED STATES IN 1800. 55 

CHAPTER V. 

Jefferson’s administration. 60 









8 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER VI. 

PAGE 

STATE RIGHTS AND NATIONALISM. 73 

CHAPTER VII. 

THE EXTINCTION OF FEDERALISM.— 1809 TO 1825 . 85 

CHAPTER VIII. 

THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1824 . 92 

CHARTER IX. 

DEMOCRATS AND WHIGS.—JACKSON AND CLAY. 100 

. CHAPTER X. 

NATIVE AMERICANISM IN POLITICS... 107 

CHAPTER XI. 

AFRICAN SLAVERY IN POLITICS. 114 

CHAPTER XII. 


THE RISE OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY 


127 









CONTENTS. 


9 


CHAPTER XIII. 

PAGE 

PISUNIONISTS AND NULLIFIERS. 142 

CHAPTER XIV. 

ATTITUDE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY TOWARDS THE REBELLION. 160 

CHAPTER XV. 

REVIVAL OF FEDERALISM.—THE WAR PERIOD. 177 

CHAPTER XVI. 

FEDERALISM SUPREME.—THE PERIOD OF RECONSTRUCTION AND EXTREME 

CORRUPTION. 201 

CHAPTER XVII.‘ 

“ A FREE BALLOT AND A FAIR COUNT.”. 226 

CHAPTER XVIII. 

TARIFF LAWS AND THE RELATIONS OF PARTIES THERETO. 251 

CHAPTER XIX. 


THE MILLS BILL.—ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST IT 


267 









•10 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER XX. 


THE ATTITUDE OF PARTIES TOWARDS THE LABORING CLASSES 


CHAPTER XXI. 


rAGE 

303 


DEMOCRACY REVIVED.—CLEVELAND’S ADMINISTRATION 


315 




SUPERIORITY 

OF 

DEIIOCEATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


INTRODUCTION. 

When any intelligent citizen comes to consider why it is 
that the American people are divided into rival political par¬ 
ties, it cannot long escape his notice that the Democratic 
party is the only party in the country that has been in exist¬ 
ence longer than the duration of an average lifetime; that 
it is the only party the country ever produced that could 
maintain a continuous and unbroken organization without the 
cement of government patronage; that it is the only party 
ever organized in the country that could endure a succession 
of defeats at the polls without disorganization and eventual 
abandonment; and that, in its seasons of defeat as well as of 
victory, there never was a time, in all of its long and glorious 
history, when it was unable to present a formidable front and 
engage its adversary in a doubtful battle. 

These striking peculiarities naturally lead any thoughtful 
man to consider that there must be some sort of merit about this 
singular old party,—some great underlying principle, or endur¬ 
ing cohesive force of some kind, that has enabled it, throughout 
a century of unparalleled progress, to withstand the popular 
storms that have blown all its former rivals into fragments. 

What is the secret of the enduring popularity of the Demo¬ 
cratic party ? 

The brief and general answer is, that it has always been on 



12 


SUPERIORITY OF 


the side of the people in all their struggles against the aggres¬ 
sions of rings, monopolies, and all sorts of robbing combina¬ 
tions ; that it has always administered the government in the 
interest of the whole people rather than for the benefit of 
favored classes ; and that it is the only party that has ever 
correctly understood the constitution and honestly put its re¬ 
publican principles into practical operation. But, in order to 
answer the question fully and satisfactorily, and to clear up 
all the doubts inyolved in general statements of facts, it is 
necessary to go back along the channel of our political history 
far enough to learn the character of the policy it was organ¬ 
ized to oppose, and of the public evils arising out of that policy 
which it was designed to remedy. The Democratic party was 
organized near the close of the last century, under the name 
of the Eepublican, or Democratic-Eepublican, party ; and the 
purpose of its organization was to oppose and overthrow the 
monarchical policy of the old Federalist party, which was then 
in control of the government. The Eepublican party of the 
present day is practically the same in policy and principles as 
the old Federalist party; so that it becomes necessary to learn 
the principles and policy of that ancient, extinct party, in 
order to a correct understanding of the fundamental differ¬ 
ences between the Democratic party and its present great rival 
organization. 

In considering the history of the early years of the govern¬ 
ment of the United States, it is a matter of simple justice to 
all parties and persons to remember, that all the people who 
took part in the organization of the government had been 
brought up under a king. They were accustomed to mon¬ 
archical institutions. They had no practical experience in the 
management of a republican government such as they had 
brought into being. They were entering upon a great experh 
ment; and it was natural that they should carry into the 
management of the new government many of the practices 
they had learned, and the instrumentalities to which they had 
been accustomed, under the British monarchy. 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


13 


As the subjects of Grreat Britain, they had been accustomed 
to an enormous funded debt on which the goyernment paid 
interest to the holders of its bonds, eyery dollar of which it 
had to collect from its citizens who were not bond-holders. 
They had been accustomed to a yast standing army, the 
soldiers and officers of which had to be paid, clothed, fed, 
armed, equipped, and proyided with forts, tents and barracks, 
eyery dollar of the cost of which had to be collected from the 
citizens who were not soldiers. They had been accustomed to 
royal grants of monopolies to fayorites of the king, by which the 
exclusiye trade in commodities of necessary use amongst the 
people was giyen to a fayored few, who were enabled to sup¬ 
press all competition in trade, and to oppress the masses by 
exacting unconscionable prices for necessary articles of daily 
use. They had been accustomed to an endless retinue of goy¬ 
ernment officials and dependants, whose salaries the people had 
to pay, in wdiose selection the people had no yoice or yote, and 
who constituted a permanent, arrogant, unaccommodating 
goyerning class, totally independent of the people. They had 
been accustomed to a goyernment that always fayored the rich 
few who had money to loan, to the detriment of the masses of 
the people who had all the burdens to bear. The executiye 
head of the goyernment to which they had been accustomed 
was in the habit of exercising almost unlimited powers oyer 
the liberties of the people ; and freedom of speech and of the 
press was so far restrained and shackled as to effectually pre- 
yent exposure of the corruptions and oppressions of the gov¬ 
erning class. 

It was natural that the managers of the new government of 
the United States should adopt many of the policies and 
practices to which they had grown accustomed under the 
monarchical government of Great Britain. They had a large 
public debt, contracted by the States and the Confederacy 
during a protracted period of war; and it was natural that 
they should provide for funding the debt, thereby creating a 
small creditor class to hold the bonds, and a large debtor class to 


14 


SUPERIORITY OF 


pay the interest on them. It was natural that they should rely 
upon a regular standing army, rather than organized militia, 
for defense in case of public danger. It was natural that they 
should adopt a policy that would favor the rich, that would build 
up monopolies, and that would establish a permanent governing 
class. It was natural that they should clothe the President 
and government officials with extensive and arbitrary powers ; 
that they should limit the freedom of speech and of the press, 
so that the corruptions of the administration, and the wrongs 
inflicted upon the people, might not be exposed ; and that 
they should adopt a burdensome system of taxation, whereby 
tribute should belaid on everything the people owned, or used, 
or produced, in order to raise the money necessary to main¬ 
tain their expensive monarchical establishments. 

These things were all done, to a greater or less extent, by 
the old Pcderalist party, that being the first party which 
secured control of the government of the United States, and 
being the same party after which the Eepublican party of the 
present day has mainly modeled its policy for nearly thirty 
years. The Federalists were the people who favored a strong 
government policy,’^ as they called it; and they united them¬ 
selves together into a somewhat systematic party organization 
soon after the government went into operation. They pro¬ 
moted all of the principal measures of Washington’s adminis¬ 
tration. They met with opposition at a very early period, but 
their opponents had none of the characteristics of a permanent 
party organization until after Washington’s administration 
had come to an end; and, in fact, not until the great Pres¬ 
idential campaign of 1800 . Before that time, the opponents 
of tlie Federalist party were known simply as anti-Federalists; 
they were often at discord amongst themselves ; they had no 
well-defined policy; many of them frequently supported 
Federalist measures; none of them owed or professed any 
sort of allegiance to any party organization ; they were inde¬ 
pendent in their actions, and supported or opposed proposed 
measures upon their merits, or upon consideration of their 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


15 


effect upon their immediate constituents, often being governed 
by personal or temporary influences. They often united in 
opposing measures proposed by President Washington ; but 
their harmonious opposition to any one measure gave no assur¬ 
ance that they would act together for or against any other 
proposed measure. Washington’s administration, particularly 
in its outset, was mainly non-partisan. There were but four 
members of the cabinet at that time, of whom two, Hamilton 
and Knox, were Federalists, and the other two, Jefferson and 
Randolph, were anti-Federalists. Hamilton and Jefferson 
often differed widely upon measures of government, and 
their differences gradually developed into personal distrust and 
undisguised hostility. Jefferson withdrew from the cabinet 
after serving over four years as Secretary of State, and his 
resignation was soon followed by the withdrawal of Hamilton 
from the office of Secretary of the Treasury. Washington was 
generally supported by the Federalists in all of his measures, 
and his political leaning was toward the policy of that party ; 
but he was a patriot rather than a partisan, and he was held 
in such general esteem by his countrymen, that his personal 
influence always served as a wholesome check upon the am¬ 
bitious leaders of the party that chiefly sustained him. When 
tie retired from office at the end of his second term, all of the 
members of his cabinet were Federalists, and nearly all of the 
government offices were held by members of that party. 
Although Washington’s administration was in many respects 
non-partisan, it may be fairly credited to the Federalist party 
in its earlier and best days. 

Washington was succeeded in the Presidency by John Adams, 
a pronounced Federalist, who was elected over Jefferson in 
1796. His was the flrst partisan administration ; and, although 
it continued for only one term, it was sufficient to thoroughly 
awaken the American people to the anti-republican tendencies 
and dangerous designs of the Federalist party. When Adams 
was inaugurated, on the 4th of March, 1797, he found a 
decided Federalist majority in each branch of the congress. 


16 


SUPERIORITY OF 


* 

All of his cabinet officers were Federalists, and the whole 
machinery of the government was under the complete control 
of that party. Washington’s restraining hand was no longer 
at the helm, and there was no longer any hindrance in the way 
of putting in practice the Hamiltonian policy of a strong 
government.” 

A careful study of the anti-republican measures of the ad¬ 
ministration of John Adams, compared with the Democratic 
measures of the administration of Thomas Jefferson, will re¬ 
veal the fact to any intelligent and unprejudiced reader, that 
the strong government ” advocated by Hamilton ninety 
years ago, and by the leaders of the Kepublican party of this 
generation, is essentially a monarchy in disguise. During the 
administration of John Adams, a vast standing army was 
established for political purposes, the people were burdened 
with taxation to the very limit of endurance, monopolies were 
fostered and favored classes were made the recipients of gov¬ 
ernment bounties, new and useless offices were created as 
rewards for partisan services, the anti-Federalists were rigidly 
excluded from all share in the government, the rights of the 
people were ignored, a gag was put upon their tongues, freedom 
of the press to criticise public men and measures was practi¬ 
cally destroyed, illiberal and unwise naturalization laws were 
enacted, aliens were placed at the arbitrary mercy of the Presi¬ 
dent, and the government was administered in the interest of a 
party for the benefit of the few to the detriment of the masses. 
Powers were conferred upon the President such as George III. 
had never attempted to exercise over the people of the colonies. 

The people of that day were the heroes of the Eevolution 
and their sons, and they rose up in their insulted majesty, 
with Thomas Jefferson as their patriotic leader, and, in the 
presidential campaign of 1800, they indignantly swept the 
monarchical Federalists from the control of the government 
forever. That was the first great achievement of the Demo¬ 
cratic party, and for that purpose it was organized. The 
newspapers of that day were nearly all controlled by the Fed- 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


17 


eralists, and their abuse of Mr. Jefferson, as Mr. Blaine has 
said, arose to a pitch ‘^surpassing the partisan rancor with 
which later generations have been familiar.” The Federalists 
were confident in their assertions and positive in their predic¬ 
tions that Democratic supremacy would literally ruin the 
government. Mr. Jefferson entered upon the duties of the 
Presidency in the face of just such abuse and predictions of 
disasters as met the advent of Mr. Cleveland’s administration 
eighty-four years later. How did it turn out ? 

President Jefferson’s first term was so highly satisfactory to 
the American people that he was elected to serve a second 
term by an electoral vote of 162 to 14 votes for his Federalist 
opponent. This gratifying result is not surprising when it is 
remembered that the spirit of the Eevolutionary period was 
still abroad amongst the people, and they were ready to 
throttle Monarchy, whether its tyrannical hand was raised 
against them from across the sea or its spirit animated their 
own trusted officials at home. Besides, Jefferson’s adminis¬ 
tration gave to the American people their first practical expe¬ 
rience of a government republican in fact as well as in form 
and name; their onerous and unnecessary burdens were 
promptly lifted ; the standing army was disbanded ; a sinking 
fund was created for the extinguishment of the public debt; 
useless officials were dismissed ; the gag was removed from the 
tongue ; freedom of the press was established upon an endur¬ 
ing basis ; monopolies were overthrown ; the naturalization 
laws were liberalized ; the unwise and monarchical institutions 
of Federalism were completely swept away; and the govern¬ 
ment, for the first time in its history, became a government of 
the people for the people. The geographical limits of the 
country had been doubled ; many of our foreign complications 
had been satisfactorily settled; and our wise domestic policy 
had brought progress to the country, and prosperity, content¬ 
ment, freedom and happiness to the people. 

At the close of Jefferson’s second term he was strongly 
urged, but firmly declined, to serve a third term; but the 
2 


18 


SUPERIORITY OF 


popularity of the Democratic party had become established, 
and its candidate, James Madison, was easily elected. During 
his administration, ^Hhe Second War of Independence” was 
successfully carried on against Great Britain, in the face of 
the treasonable opposition and obstructions of the New Eng¬ 
land Federalists, resulting in the establishment of the Ameri¬ 
can character abroad, and the freedom of all who traversed 
the seas under the American flag. At the close of President 
Madison’s second term, the Democratic candidate, James 
Monroe, was elected by an overwhelming majority. Before 
the close of his first term, the old Federalist party had become 
utterly disbanded, and no further attempt was made to keep 
up its organization, even in the States. Its extinction was so 
complete that, in 1820, President Monroe had no opposition 
for re-election. For about ten years thereafter, the Demo¬ 
cratic party was the only political party in the country. In 
1824, there were four presidential candidates in the field, but 
they were all ardent Democrats. The personal antagonisms 
of the several candidates led to a division of the Democratic 
party into two branches, one of which afterwards assumed the 
name of the Whig party, and became the only formidable op¬ 
ponent of the Democracy for a period of twenty years. It was 
a constitutional party, free from the monarchical heresies of 
the Federalists, and differing in no radical degree from the 
Democratic party of which it was originally a branch. The 
campaign of 1852 was the death blow to the Whig party; after 
which the opposition to the regular Democratic party floun¬ 
dered about in search of a rallying issue, until the passage of 
the Kansas-Nebraska Bill in 1854 afforded an issue upon 
which the first sectional party that ever existed in the country 
was organized. It appropriated the name ^‘Republican,” 
which the old Jeffersonian Democracy had entirely dropped for 
a quarter of a century ; and, after a hopeful campaign in 
1856, it became strong enough in 1860 to elect its candidate 
for the Presidency, owing to a calamitous split in the Demo¬ 
cratic party, growing out of irreconcilable differences between 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


19 


its Northern and Southern membership upon the questions 
arising out of slavery. 

The '"strong government'’ policy of the old Federalist 
party prevailed for the most part in the government of the 
United States during the first twelve years of its existence. 
That period of Federalism was followed by a long period of 
sixty years, during which the republican policy of the Dem¬ 
ocratic party prevailed without practical interruption ; so that 
the history of the United States from the beginning of the 
nineteenth century up until 1861 is essentially a history of 
the Democratic party and its policy. It is the history of a 
country without a rival in all the annals of the human race ; 
and whoever studies it, with an honest purpose to learn the 
truth, will realize that the unparalleled success of the United 
States, during the first sixty years of the present century, is 
due, above all other things, to the overthrow of Federalism in 
the glorious campaign of 1800, and the adoption and operation 
of the Democratic policy of government by the people for the 
benefit of the people. If the Federalist policy had become 
firmly established as the American policy, there is abundant 
reason to believe that our national boundaries would never 
have extended beyond the Mississippi River ; and, if we had 
not become re-absorbed by the government of Great Britain, 
we should have been a comparatively insignificant and de¬ 
pendent nation, subject to a government essentially monar¬ 
chical, involved in strife with neighboring monarchies, as all 
European nations have been, burdened with a vast standing 
army, an enormous public debt, and unrepublican restrictions 
upon the liberties of the people. We owe it to the Democratic 
party that we possess the great central belt of the continent 
from ocean to ocean, and are free from ambitious and aggress¬ 
ive neighboring nations, the existence of which would have 
made North America, like Europe, a continent of jealous rival 
governments, in which the substance of the people is consumed 
in maintaining stupendous standing armies in times of peace ; 
for be it remembered, that when the Democratic party came 


20 


SUPERIORITY OF 


into control of the government in 1801, we did not own an acre 
of land west of the Mississippi Kiver nor south of the thirty- 
first parallel of north latitude, and that the several acquisitions 
of territory by which our boundaries were trebled before 1860, 
were every one made by the Democratic party in the face of 
the most decided and bitter hostility of its opponents. 

The election of a President by a sectional party in 1860 led 
to the great Southern Rebellion in 1861, and enabled the new 
Republican party to revive and put into practical operation the 
monarchical policy which had become extinct by the overthrow 
of Federalism. Corruption and extravagance on a scale sur¬ 
passing all previous experience came in with the strong govern¬ 
ment reign of the Republican party ; innumerable new ofiBces 
and dependencies were created ; the government ceased to be 
operated for the benefit of the people, and its whole policy was 
characterized by reckless extravagance, corruption, and the 
building up of monopolies and favored classes. Freedom of 
speech and of the press was abridged ; the habeas corpus was 
suspended ; Bastiles reared their frowning walls around state 
prisoners incarcerated for unknown causes ; drum-head court 
martials and military commissions took the place of trial by 
jury ; lawlessness ran riot; robbing rings plundered the people 
who were burdened with oppressive exactions; voters were over¬ 
awed and election returns falsified ; government supplies, 
from the stately ship upon the deep down to crippled mules 
and even to shoddy ’’ blankets, were bought through favored 
speculators who realized enormous profits ; bribery of legis¬ 
lators became so common that personal honesty was laughed to 
scorn; favorites amassed fortunes from government spoils ; 
gamblers were furnished in advance with information of pro¬ 
posed government movements to enable them to manipulate 
the markets; rings became the popular feature of the Re¬ 
publican period—army rings, navy rings, whiskey rings, 
Indian rings—rings everywhere in everything connected with 
the government. The people outside of the rings and favored 
classes were literally ignored ; the government was not for them. 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


21 


The policy of the Republican party during its period of 
supremacy was essentially a policy of ^^give and take.” It 
gave the public lands and public grants of special privileges 
to corporations, and monopolies, and favorites, and took in re¬ 
turn the coerced votes controlled by the recipients of favors, 
and their liberal contributions to party campaign funds. 
Within less than fifteen years after it came into power, the 
Republican party voted away to corporations successive grants 
of the very lands acquired by the Democrats, to such extent 
that the aggregate grants amount to nearly as much as all the 
lands within the boundaries of the original thirteen States. 
The Republican party has invariably favored the classes who 
employ and control large numbers of voters, thereby attaching 
to their organization the powerful combinations of capitalists 
who manipulate their wage-workers, and furnish the bulk of 
the campaign corruption funds. Their measures, almost 
without exception, have been simply vote-catching projects ; 
and, if they resulted in any benefit to the people, it was merely 
incidental to the main jiurpose. For example : by far the 
most beneficial measure ever advanced by the Republican 
party was the creation of a national currency ; but the benefit 
to the people, in their daily transactions, is purely an incident 
to the primary party purpose, which was to create a multitude 
of powerful national banking associations to bring votes and 
contribu tions to the party. 

For twenty-four years, that party used the general govern¬ 
ment for party purposes, bringing every department into sub¬ 
jection to the party machinery for making votes. Contested 
seats in Congress and legislative bodies were awarded to their 
partisans, regardless of law or the merits of the controversies ; 
a sovereign State was robbed of its governor duly chosen by its 
citizens, and a usurper established in his place upon the law¬ 
less order of a federal judge, and maintained by the military 
power of the government; official thieves and open violators of 
law were shielded from deserved punishment, and often de¬ 
fiantly retained in the official positions they had disgraced. 


22 


SUPERIORITY OF 


Never before the Kepublican period did the American people 
hear of White-washing ” reports of committees appointed to 
investigate frauds; never before did they hear of the word 
tramp/’as applied to thousands of unhappy and foot-soro 
wanderers traversing the land in search of employment and 
subsistence ; and never before did a corrupting congressional 
lobby become so common an incident of legislation as to ac¬ 
quire the designation of the Third House.” Never in all 
of our history have the standards of public morality and offi¬ 
cial integrity been so debased as during the twenty-four years 
of Kepublican administration. Never has partisan crime been 
so systematically excused, and partisan corruption so boldly 
practiced and so generally encouraged. Never have the natu¬ 
ral channels of trade been so frequently clogged, and diverted 
from their accustomed courses, by combinations made possible 
by the policy of the government. During the Democratic 
period, prices were generally regulated by the natural laws of 
supply and demand ; during the Kepublican period, nearly 
every daily paper contained accounts of meetings of the repre¬ 
sentatives of some industry assembled to artificially regulate 
the prices of their products. Duties provided to meet the 
temporary necessities of war times have been continued in 
times of peace for the benefit of party favorites, to the detri¬ 
ment of the masses, resulting in an overflowing treasury, invit¬ 
ing public plunderers to schemes of robbery, and representa¬ 
tives of the people to wasteful extravagance. 

Whilst denouncing Democrats for alleged subserviency to 
British influences, the Kepublicans have steadily pursued a 
policy that has destroyed American shipping, and transferred 
almost the entire carrying trade of the United States to foreign 
bottoms, chiefly British. In 1884, the value of the imports 
and exports carried to and from the United States was more than 
double the value carried in 1860 ; while the tonnage of United 
States vessels engaged in the foreign trade in 1860 was nearly 
double that of 1884. In 1860, our own vessels carried 66.5 per 
cent of our foreign trade ; in 1884 only 16.3 per cent. From 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


23 


60,000 to 100,000 Americans go abroad on business or pleasure 
every year, and they are carried almost entirely on foreign 
steamers. Before tliey leave JSTew York Bay they are under 
the British flag, subject to the command of British officers, 
handling British pounds, shillings, and pence, and in every 
way subjected to British dominion as completely as when they 
land at Liverpool. The songs of their native land give place 
to ^‘Rule Britannia” and God Save the Queen.” During 
the twenty-four years of Eepublican administration, the social 
and political habits and systems of the British kept spreading 
among the people of the United States, and we were rapidly 
separating into classes similar to those existing in England. 
Wealth, exceeding the fortunes of the British aristocracy, has 
been amassed by favored individuals, whilst laboring men 
were gradually becoming a distinctive and lower class of soci¬ 
ety. Power, wealth, lands and valuables were gradually drift¬ 
ing into the hands of the few, and the great struggling masses 
were becoming more and more dependent, and less and less 
respected, in conformity with the English system. It is a 
monstrous false pretense to assert that labor has been made 
respectable under Republican rule ; on the contrary, it has 
been forced by the wealth-gathering favored classes into a dis¬ 
tinctive and dependent rank, and, if its representatives had 
not learned the trick of organization, they would have been 
degraded to a servile level. 

Thousands of honest Republicans became alarmed and felt 
humiliated at the bold corruptions and arrogant assumptions 
of their party managers, and the boss-ridden condition of the 
membership of their party ; but they had been scared at the 
unrealized calamities predicted as the result of Democratic 
supremacy, and they felt that it was better to be robbed by 
their own partisans than to trust the administration of the 
government to the Democrats. 

The presidential campaign of 1884 bore a striking resem¬ 
blance, in many of its features, to the great campaign of 1800. 
It was a struggle for popular government against the powerful 


24 


SUPERIORITY OF 


macliinery of practical monarchy; a battle for the fair and 
equal rights and wisely-regulated liberties of the people 
against the arrogant and greedy exactions of partisan favor¬ 
ites of the governing class. So strongly were the enemies of 
the people intrenched behind barriers of twenty-four years’ 
growth, and so powerful over the masses was the machinery 
of party, that it was only the fortunate defection of a class of 
Republicans to the Prohibitionists that gave the electoral vote 
of New York, and with it the Presidency, to the candidate of 
the Democratic party. 

Innumerable public calamities were confidently and solemnly 
predicted as the unavoidable result; coarse ridicule and indecent 
slander were profusely heaped upon the President elect; he 
was denounced as inexperienced in public afPairs and grossly 
incompetent; as Mr. Blaine has said about Jefferson, ‘‘no 
abuse was too malignant, no epithet too coarse, no impreca¬ 
tion too savage, to be employed by his assailants.” He en¬ 
tered upon his official duties March 4th, 1885, under circum¬ 
stances of peculiar and unprecedented embarrassment. He 
was sustained by a party majority in the Lower House of Con¬ 
gress, but a majority of the Senate, and all the agents of the 
government, in all the ramifications of office, occupied an 
attitude of partisan hostility. His party had been out of 
power nearly a quarter of a century, and those of its member¬ 
ship who had been skilled in the duties of official positions 
had nearly all passed away. He was an object of distrust 
amongst nearly one-half of the American people, who were 
eager to criticise and ready to oppose his every movement and 
measure; and even many members of his own party silently 
waited in trembling apprehension of serious blunders. More 
than three years of restored Democratic administration have 
passed; and what has been the result? 

First: How has President Cleveland’s administration af¬ 
fected his own party? The unmistakable answer is found in 
the one grand concentrated voice of approval of its member¬ 
ship, through their representatives assembled at St. Louis, ex- 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION, 


26 


pressed in his unanimous nomination by acclamation as their 
candidate for a second term. 

Second : How has it impressed judicious Republicans? 
Few honest, candid, intelligent and thoughtful members of 
that powerful party will fail to give their assent to the sen¬ 
timents expressed in the following extract from one of the 
leading organs of their party, to wit, the Philadelphia Tele¬ 
graph of June —, 1888: 

‘^The strength of Mr. Cleveland should not be under¬ 
estimated ; it is much greater now than it was in 1884. He 
has made a good, safe President; he has not kept his civil 
service reform pledges, and yet his administration has been 
without scandal in high or low places of official trust. But 
most important of all is that he has satisfactorily proven that 
there may be a Democratic administration of the government 
without danger to the country and without putting Hhe 
rebels in the saddle’ again. He has proven not only that the 
election of a Democratic President does not mean the stopping 
of all the wheels of industry and the impoverishment of all 
workingmen, but that under a Democratic administration 
more wheels have been started in the industries, and that the 
old ones are revolving more rapidly; that the credit of the 
nation was never better and. its unity never so perfect. Be¬ 
cause of all this Mr. Cleveland will be renominated this week 
at St. Louis; and because of all this, at Chicago a citizen 
equal or superior to him should be nominated by the Re¬ 
publicans. ” 

The causes of President Cleveland’s strength with the 
people, and the general public satisfaction with his adminis¬ 
tration, are aptly stated in the speech of Chairman Collins, 
and the nominating speech of Daniel Dougherty, Esq., at 
the St. Louis convention. Mr. Collins said: 

‘^The administration of President Cleveland has triumph¬ 
antly justified his election. It compels the respect, confi¬ 
dence and approval of the country. The prophets of evil 
and disaster are dumb. 

‘‘The people see the government of the Union restored on 
its ancient footing of justice, peace, honesty and impartial 
enforcement of law. They see the demands of labor and 


26 


SUPERIORITY OF 


agriculture met, so far as government can meet them, by 
legislative enactments for their encouragement and protection. 
They see the veterans of the civil war granted pensions long 
due them to the amount of more than twice in number, and 
nearly three times in value of those granted under any 
previous administration. 

‘^They see more than 32,000,000 acres of land, recklessly 
and illegally held by the grantees of the corrupt Republican 
regime, restored to the public domain for the benefit of 
honest settlers. They see the negro, whose fears of Democratic 
rule were played upon by demagogues four years ago, not 
only more fully protected than by his pretended friends, but 
honored as his race was never honored before. They see a 
financial policy under which reckless speculation has practically 
ceased and capital freed from distrust. 

^^They see for the first time an honest observance of the law 
governing the civil establishment, and the employes of the 
people rid, at last, of the political highwayman with a demand 
for tribute in one hand and a letter of dismisial in the other. 
They see useless offices abolished and expenses of administra¬ 
tion reduced, while improved methods have lifted the public 
service to high efficiency. They see tranquillity, order, secur¬ 
ity and equal justice restored in the land, a watchful, steady, 
safe and patriotic administration—the solemn promises made 
by the Democracy faithfully kept. It is an honest govern¬ 
ment by honest men.” 

Referring to the opposition of the partisan opponents of 
the Democracy, he very appropriately gave these words of 
warning, to wit: 

“We are confronted by a wily, unscrupulous and desperate 
foe. There will be no speck on the record that they will not 
magnify into a blot, no circumstance that they will not torture 
and misrepresent, no disappointment that they will not exag- 
erate into a revolt, no class or creed that they will not seek 
to infiame, no passion that they will not attempt to arouse, 
no fraud that they will not willingly perpetrate.” 

Mr. Dougherty said: 

“Weare here not, indeed, to choose a candidate, but to 
name the one the people have already chosen. He is the man 
for the people. His career illustrates the glory of our institu- 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. ^7 

tions. Eight years ago, unknown save in his own locality, he 
for the last four has stood in the gaze of the world discharging 
the most exalted duties that can be confided to a mortal. To¬ 
day determines that not of his own choice, but by the mandate 
of his countrymen, and with the sanction of Heaven, he shall 
fill the Presidency for four years more. He has met and 
mastered every question as if from youth trained to statesman¬ 
ship. The promises of his letter of acceptance and inaugural 
address have been fulfilled. His fidelity in the past inspires 
faith in the future. He is not a hope. He is a realization. 

Scorning subterfuge, disdaining re-election by concealing 
convictions, mindful of his oath of office to defend the Con¬ 
stitution, he courageously declares to congress, dropping 
minor matters, that the supreme issue is reform, revision, re¬ 
duction of national taxation. That the Treasury of the United 
States, glutted with unneeded gold, oppresses industry, em¬ 
barrasses business, endangers financial tranquillity and breeds 
extravagance, centralization and corruption. That high tax¬ 
ation, vital for the expenditures of an unparalleled war, is 
robbery in years of prosperous peace. That the millions that 
pour into the Treasury come from the hard-earned savings of 
the American people. That in violation of equality of rights 
the present tariff has created a privileged class, who, shaping 
legislation for their personal gain, levy by law contributions 
for the necessaries of life, from every man, woman and child 
in the land. To lower the tariff is not free trade ; it is to 
reduce the unjust profits of monopolists and boss manufact¬ 
urers, and allow consumers to retain the rest. The man who 
asserts that to lower the tariff means free trade insults intelli¬ 
gence. We brand him as a falsifier. It is furthest from 
thought to imperil capital or disturb enterprises. The aim is 
to uphold wages and protect the rights of all. 

^^This administration has rescued the public domain from 
the would-be barons and cormorant corporations faithless to 
obligations, and reserved it for free homes for this and coming 
generations. There is no pilfering. There are no jobs under 
this administration. Public office is a public trust. Integrity 
stands at every post of our vast empire. While the President 
has been the medium through which has flowed the undying 
gratitude of the Republic for her soldiers, he has not hesi¬ 
tated to withhold approval from special legislation, if strictest 
inquiry revealed a want of truth and justice.’’ 

In his daily habits. President Cleveland has set an example 


28 


SUPERIORITY OF 


of industry, integrity and manly independence to all subor¬ 
dinate officials of the government and all the people. No 
favored class, no faction, no ring, within his party or without, 
controls his action or swerves him from an honest lidelity to 
his great trust. Under his administration, and despite the 
clogs and embarrassments and narrow partisan opposition of 
his rivals, the government is rapidly becoming a government 
of the people for the benefit of all sections, parties and classes. 
He may have made mistakes; but who would have made so 
few ? Any Democrat may appropriately ask his fault-finding 
Kepublican neighbor : What has President Cleveland done 
with which any honest unbiased citizen can justly and fairly 
find fault ? 

Coming into office under circumstances very similar to 
those surrounding President Jefferson eighty-seven years 
ago, he has met his great responsibilities with the wisdom, 
courage, fidelity to duty, and unselfish devotion to the whole 
people which so eminently characterized his deservedly honored 
and great predecessor ; and it may be said without exaggera¬ 
tion that no President since Jefferson has exhibited the 
qualities of excellence befitting the Chief Magistrate of the 
United States in a higher degree than Grover Cleveland. 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


29 


CHAPTER I. 

THE MONARCHICAL POLICY OF THE FEDERALISTS. 

When John Adams was inaugurated as President, on March 
4, 1797, the general government had already assumed the 
debts of the several States contracted in carrying on the war 
of independence. This indebtedness had been funded in 
accordance with the policy recommended by Hamilton, As 
Secretary of the Treasury, and there was already a powerful 
class of bondholders. 

Our relations with France, when Adams became President, 
were in a very unsatisfactory condition. The affairs of that 
country were in a tumultuous state. TJie French had given 
valuable aid to the American colonies in their struggle for 
independence, and when President Washington had issued his 
proclamation, on the 18th of April, 1793, declaring the 
neutrality of the United States, in the war between Great 
Britain and France, the French were greatly displeased with 
what they considered American ingratitude. Their cruisers 
began a series of depredations upon American commerce. In 
February, 1797, the French authorities had expelled the 
American minister, Mr. Pinckney, from their country, and 
issued decrees for further depredations. The fighting blood 
of the Americans was stirred, and the Federalists availed them¬ 
selves of the war feeling to make provisions for a permanent 
standing army. The Fifth Congress, at its first session, com¬ 
mencing in November, 1797, and continuing until July 16, 
1798, authorized President Adams to organize twelve additional 
regiments of infantry, and one regiment each of cavalry, 
artillery and engineers, and provision was made for the erec¬ 
tion of fortifications at important points along the coast from 


30 


SUPERIORITY OF 


Boston to Savannah. To meet these expenses an additional 
loan was negotiated at eight per cent, interest, and a direct 
tax was levied on real estate. An excise duty, or internal 
revenue tax, already existed, and was felt as a grievous burden 
in some parts of the country. War with France was averted ; 
but advantage was taken of the hostile excitement to raise and 
officer an army, quite large in comparison with the popula¬ 
tion, with General Hamilton at its head. Before the close of 
President Adams’s administration, the people came to under¬ 
stand that the army had been increased for partisan purposes ; 
and they recognized it as a tremendous monarchical institution, 
entailing burdensome exactions from the masses for its support. 
So long as the aggressions of France continued, the people 
submitted to their burdens with patriotic patience ; but they 
soon learned that the strengthening of the military arm of the 
government was more of a menace to their own liberties than 
a terror to the French. 

The anti-republican purposes of the monarchical Federalists 
were more clearly revealed to the people, when the majority 
in congress adopted, and President Adams approved, a series 
of obnoxious and tyrannical and extremely anti-republican 
legislation, known in American history as the Alien and 
Sedition Laws. These monsters of American legislation 
afford the key to the monarchical designs of the leaders of 
the old Federalist party ; and, as few of even the most intel¬ 
ligent people of this generation are accurately informed as to 
the scope and meaning of those radical laws, the considerate 
attention of the reader is invited to their provisions. 

At the time of their enactment, there were about two 
hundred newspapers published in the United States, all of 
which, with the exception of about twenty, supported the ad¬ 
ministration. Amongst the anti-administration journalists, 
there were a considerable number of foreigners, being French¬ 
men, and refugee Scotchmen, Irishmen and Englishmen. 
These foreigners saw in the policy of the Federalists the devel¬ 
opment of the monarchical institutions with which they were 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


31 


familiar in the governments from which they had fled, and 
the native-born citizens of the United States began to see 
that the Federalist party were disposed to clothe their Presi¬ 
dent with powers more tyrannical and burdensome than 
George III. had ever attempted to exercise over the people of 
the Colonies. The exposures of the monarchical tendencies 
of the party in power became highly offensive to the adminis¬ 
tration and its adherents, and it was determined to silence 
criticism of the administration by muzzling the press of the 
country. 

The first of the alien laws consisted of an amendment of the 
previously existing naturalization laws, and it required an 
alien to reside in the country fourteen years, and five years’ 
previous declaration of intention, before he could become a 
citizen. It required a register to be kept of all aliens resident 
within the country, who were required to have their names 
entered therein under penalties in case of neglect ; and, in 
case of application to be naturalized, the certificate of an entry 
in this register was to be the only proof of residence that the 
courts were allowed to receive. 

The second of these alien laws authorized and empowered 
the President to banish from the country all such aliens as he 
might judge dangerous to the peace and safety of the United 
States, or might suspect to.be concerned in any treasonable or 
secret machinations. It made no provision for complaint, 
hearing or trial; it was a bold and unlimited warrant to the 
President to seize upon any alien he might see fit to suspect, 
or to adjudge dangerous without hearing, and to ruthlessly 
expel such unfortunate person from the country, without right 
of appeal to any legal tribunal, or any sort of redress. This 
act was limited in its operation to a period of two years, so 
that it could not be enforced by the next President, if he 
should happen not to be a Federalist. 

The Sedition law, as it passed the Senate by a two-thirds 
vote, provided that any person who, by writing, printing, 
publishing or speaking,’ should attempt to justify the hostile 


32 


SUPERIORITY OF 


conduct of the French, or to defame or weaken the govern¬ 
ment or laws of the United States, by any seditious or inflam¬ 
matory declarations or expressions, tending to induce a belief 
that the government or any of its officers were influenced 
by motives hostile to the constitution, or to the liberties or 
happiness of the people, might be punished by fine or im¬ 
prisonment. 

Think for a moment what would become of the Eepubli- 
can newspapers of our day, if every editor could be fined 
and locked up in prison, for publishing an article charging 
that President Cleveland, or any officer of the government, 
was influenced in any act hy motives hostile to the liberties or 
happiness of the people ! 

When the bill as passed by the Senate came up for con¬ 
sideration in the lower house of the congress, it was amended 
so as to provide a punishment of a fine not exceeding $2,000, 
and imprisonment not exceeding two years, for anybody who 
should be guilty of printing or publishing any false, scandalous, 
or malicious writings against the government of the United 
States, or either house of the congress, or the President, with 
intent to defame them, or to bring them into contempt or 
disrepute, or to excite against them the hatred of the good 
people of the United States, or to stir up sedition, etc. A 
cowardly feature of this iniquitous law was that it was to 
continue in force only until March 4th, 1801, when the term 
of President Adams expired. The Federalists tacitly admit¬ 
ted the partisan character of the law, by limiting its operation 
to the period of their own certain control of the govern¬ 
ment. 

In considering the provisions of this law, it must not be 
forgotten, that the judges who were entrusted with its ex¬ 
ecution were all Federalists, and that the distinguishing 
feature of the doctrines of the Federalist party was to give 
the broadest construction to the terms of the constitution and 
laws conferring powers upon the general government. Al¬ 
though the law provided that the truth of the publication 


DEMOCRATIC AD3IINISTRATI0N. 


33 


might he given in evidence as a defense, and made the jury 
the judges of the law as well as the facts, it must not he for¬ 
gotten that the right to select the jurors belonged to the 
United States marshals, who were all Federalists. It was the 
intent and meaning of this law, as designed by its authors and 
understood by the people, to make it a criminal offense to op¬ 
pose the administration. Prof. Alexander Johnston, author 
of the History of American Politics,” says : 

‘individuals were thus irrevocably brought under the 
operation of a law which, under the very general term of ‘op¬ 
posing’ the government, made party opposition criminal^ 

Its intention was to muzzle the press, prevent free public 
criticism of public officers and measures, and to withhold from 
the people any information, except such as they could obtain 
from journals published in the interest of the administra¬ 
tion. 

It was a sense of the far-reaching danger to the liberty of 
the citizen and the press, involved in these laws, that led the 
Legislatures of Virginia and Kentucky to adopt the famous 
resolutions of 1798 and 1799; the former prepared by Madison, 
and the latter credited to Jefferson. In the Kentucky reso¬ 
lutions, it is declared that if the Alien Law is permitted to 
stand and become recognized as a constitutional exercise of 
legislative 270wer by congress “these conclusions would flow 
from them : that the general government may place any act 
they think proper on the list of crimes and punish it them¬ 
selves, whether enumerated or not enumerated by the constitu¬ 
tion as cognizable by them; that they may transfer its cognizance 
to the President or any other person, who may himself be the 
accuser, counsel, judge and jury, whose suspicions may be the 
evidence, his order the sentence, his officer the executioner, 
and his breast the sole record of the transaction;” that “ the 
friendless alien has been selected as the safest subject of a first 
experiment,” but if the alien may be constitutionally subjected 
to ex 2 )ulsion from the country, on mere suspicion, and without 
3 


34 


SUPERIORITY OF 


accusation, hearing or trial, a precedent would be established 
for reducing any citizens to the condition of outlaws, and no 
rampart would remain ‘^against the passions and power of 
a majority of congress to protect from a light exportation, 
or other grievous punishment, the minority of the same 
body, the legislatures, judges, governors and counsellors of 
the States, nor their other peaceable inhabitants” who may 
yenture to oppose the measures of the administration, or who 
may for any cause, good or bad, become obnoxious to the 
majority, or be marked by the suspicions of the President, or 
be considered dangerous to their or his re-election, or other 
interests, public or personal. 

The Legislature of Massachusetts expressed the restrictive 
policy of Federalism, in response to the resolutions of Virginia 
and Kentucky; and in reference to the sedition law, declared 
that ^^they consider that Act to be wise and necessary, as an 
audacious and unprincipled spirit of falsehood and abuse had 
been too long unremittingly exerted for the purpose of pervert¬ 
ing public opinion, and threatened to undermine and destroy 
the whole fabric of governmentthat ^Hhe President of the 
United States is bound by his oath to preserve, irrotect and 
defend the constitution, and it is expressly made his duty to 
take care that the laws be faithfully executed, hut that this 
would he impracticahle hij any created being, if there he no 
legal restraint of those scandalous misrepresentations of his 
measures and motives, tuhich directly tend to roh him of the 
public cojifidenceP 

Here was the distinct avowal of the Legislature of President 
Adams’s own State, that the Federalist policy of government 
was of that monarchical character which would be undermined 
and destroyed if subjected to the judgment of public opinion. 
Public discussion of the measures of the administration must 
be subjected to ^Hegal restraint,” as they declared, and the 
party in power must be permitted to judge of the purpose of 
an opposition journalist to exert himself in ^‘perverting pub¬ 
lic opinion.” 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


35 


In the early part of 1799, President Adams assumed the 
exercise of a king-like authority that embittered some of the 
prominent members even of his own party. His special 
envoys, sent to treat with France in 1797, had been refused a 
hearing by the French authorities, and their only communi¬ 
cations were with unofficial individuals who declined to dis¬ 
close their identity, and who signed their communications 
‘‘X Y Z.’' This had excited the indignation of the Ameri¬ 
cans, who were bitterly opposed to any further attempts at 
negotiation, unless the proposition should come from the 
French government. Adams had availed himself of the war 
feeling amongst the people to raise a standing army at great 
expense ; but the arm)^ was intended for political purposes, 
and not for war as the people had expected. In the face of 
bitter opposition from the people. President Adams, in 1799, 
having used the patriotic spirit of the people to accomplish his 
political purpose of creating a standing army to overawe them, 
determined to humbly seek further negotiations with the French 
government, regardless of the desire of the people for a decla¬ 
ration of war. He, therefore, without consulting Ms cabinet, 
took it upon himself, with kingly arrogance, to send envoys 
to France for negotiation. Of course, his nomination of com¬ 
missioners was confirmed by a partisan senate. When they 
reached Paris, a change in the French government had taken 
place, and Napoleon Bonaparte was at its head. He promptly 
appointed commissioners, who negotiated a treaty with the 
American envoys, but, as it did not stipulate indemnification 
for the long-continued and grievous depredations of French 
cruisers upon American commerce, the people of the United 
States were highly displeased with the treaty. However, 
President Adams had secured his army, which he could then 
employ for political purposes, instead of using it in war with 
France. 

During the period of the supremacy of the Federalist party, 
the people were burdened with onerous taxes upon almost 
everything they produced or used ; numerous, and many use- 


36 


SUPERIORITY OF 


less offices and dependencies had been created for government 
favorites, to add strength to the party in power ; legislation in 
favor of classes was rapidly building up monopolies to the 
detriment of the masses ; the debt of the government had been 
funded, and a powerful bond-holder class had been created in 
the interest of the administration ; a standing army had been ; 

established, and operations for the erection of expensive forti- ' 

fications had been commenced ; immigration into our then ■ 
sparsely populated and undeveloped new country had been dis¬ 
couraged and retarded by illiberal and suicidal laws affecting 
the rights of aliens; kingly powers were exercised by the • 
President, and government officials were practically independ- j 
cut of the people, with the natural consequence of making • 
them arbitrary and unaccommodating ; and, finally, freedom 1 
of speech and of the press was muzzled by iniquitous laws, 1 
making it criminal to criticise the administration and expose \ 
its wrongs to the knowledge of the people. The monarch¬ 
ical institutions and policy of the Federalists will appear 
in a more striking light, when we come to consider them ' 
in contrast with the policy and measures adopted by the \ 
Democrats as soon as they secured control of the govern- j 
ment. ! 

In view of the fact that Alexander Hamilton was the lead- { 

ing projector of the measures of the Federalist party, it is in ! 

point to reproduce here some of the sentiments expressed by ^ 
him, in the convention that framed the constitution, showing j 
the leaning of his mind as to the character of the government j 
suitable for the American people. In the course of the de¬ 
bates in that convention, he said : 

The general power, whatever be its form, if it preserves 
itself, must swallow up the State powers, otherwise it will be 
swallowed up by them. It is against all the principles of a 
good government to vest the requisite powers in such a body as 
congress. Two sovereignties cannot exist within the same 
limits. Giving powers to congress must eventuate in bad 
government, or in no government. ... If they (the State 
governments) were extinguished, he was persuaded that great 




DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


37 


economy might be obtained by substituting a general govern¬ 
ment. He did not mean, liowever, to shock the public opin¬ 
ion by proposing such a measure. On the other hand, lie saw 
710 other Tiecessity for declining it. . . . 

“This view of the subject almost led him to despair that a 
republican government could be established over so great an 
extent. He was sensible, at tlie same time, that it would be 
unwise to propose one of any other form. In his private 
opinion, he had no scruple in declaring, supported as he 
was by the opinion of so many of the wise and good, that 
the British government was the best in the world ; and that 
he doubted inuch luhether anything short of it would do in 
America. . . . 

“As to the executive, it seemed to be admitted that no good 
one could be established on republican principles. Was not 
this giving up the merits of the question ; for can there be a 
good government without a good executive ? The English 
model was the only one on this subject. The hereditary 
interest of the king was so interwoven with that of the nation, 
and his personal emolument so great that he was placed above 
the danger of being corrupted from abroad ; and at the same 
time was both sufficiently independent and sufficiently con¬ 
trolled to answer the purpose of the institution at home. One 
of the weak sides of republics was their being liable to foreign 
influence and corruption. Men of little character, acquiring 
great power, became easily the tools of intermeddling neighbors. 
Sweden was a striking instance. The French and English 
had each their parties during the late revolution, which were 
affected by the predominant influence of the former. What is 
the inference from all these observations ? That we ought to 
go as far, in order to attain stability and permanency, as re¬ 
publican principles will admit. Let one branch of the legisla¬ 
ture hold their places for life ; or at least durmg good beha¬ 
vior. Let the executive also be for lifeJ^ 

One of the sections proposed by Hamilton to Madison, as fit 
to be incorporated in and made part of the constitution, reads 
as follows, to wit: 

“ The governor or president of each State shall be appointed 
under the authority of the United States; and shall have a 
right to negative all laws about to be passed in the State of 
which he shall be governor or president, subject tosuchquali- 


38 


SUPERIORITY OF 


fications and regulations as the Legislature of the United 
States shall prescribe.” 

With a leader entertaining such views, it is not matter of 
wonder that the Federalist party should be gradually led into 
measures and policies practically similar to those of the Brit¬ 
ish monarchy, which Hamilton regarded as the best govern¬ 
ment in the world. 


DE310CRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


39 


CHAPTER 11. 

ORGAl^lZATION^ OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. 

The division of the people of the United States into per¬ 
manent rival political parties was a proceeding of gradual 
growth. Such a thing as a national convention, composed of 
delegates chosen from the membership of a party organization, 
was unknown in American politics until after the government 
had been in operation more than forty years. Presidential 
electors were not chosfti in the early years of the government 
by popular vote, as they are now. The constitution provides 
that each State shall appoint, in such manner as the Legis¬ 
lature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the 
whole number of senators and representatives to which the 
State may be entitled in the congress.” In pursuance of 
this authority the Legislatures of the several States selected 
the Presidential electors until the year 1828, when the system 
of choosing electors by popular vote was adopted by all the 
States except South Carolina, in which State the Legislature 
continued to appoint the Presidential electors until 1868. 
The early Presidential contests were, therefore, made in the 
election of members of the several Legislatures that were 
empowered to appoint the electors ; and, as these elections 
occurred on different days in the respective States, it will be 
readily seen that Presidential campaigns were very different 
from those of our day. The method of presenting Presidential 
candidates was totally different from the plan now pursued. 
A State Legislature would suggest a candidate, and other Legis¬ 
latures would ratify the suggestion, or suggest others as they 
might choose. This was the plan pursued until political par¬ 
ties had grown into something like the permanency of modern 




40 


SUPERIORITY OF 


party organizations, and then the nominations were made by 
caucuses of the representatives of the several parties in con¬ 
gress. The first nominations made by congressional caucuses 
were in 1800, and the last attempt to make a Presidential 
nomination in that way was in 1824. 

The constitution was framed and adoj)ted by delegates from 
the several States assembled in convention in 1787. When it 
was submitted to the respective States for ratification or 
rejection, it was warmly opposed by some of the prominent 
patriots of the revolutionary period, on the ground, for the 
most part, that its provisions were capable of such construction 
that the several State governments would become eventually 
absorbed by the Federal government, and the latter would 
become practically a monarchy. This objection was zealously 
and successfully combated by the friends of the proposed 
constitution, amongst whom Madison and Hamilton were the 
most conspicuous leaders. As the friends of the constitution 
interpreted and explained its provisions, the States were to 
retain all the powers not expressly delegated by them to the 
general government, and the President was to be simply an 
executive officer removable at the pleasure of the people every 
four years, and not in any sense a life monarch with power to 
direct or control the succession. The apprehensions of the 
opponents of the constitution were quieted, and their opposi¬ 
tion overcome, by the assurances of its friends that the con¬ 
stitution established a republican government, which no fair 
construction could convert into anything like a monarchy. 
However, in some of the States, the constitution was ratified 
by meager majorities, and the States of North Carolina and 
Ehode Island rejected it ; although they both afterwards 
ratified it. 

The government had no sooner been organized under the 
constitution, than certain of its officers began to claim and 
exercise the very powers of centralization which the opponents 
of the constitution had dreaded. Hamilton was the leading 
advocate of the strong government ” theory, and Jefferson 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


41 


was its leading opponent. They were both members of Presi¬ 
dent Washington’s cabinet, and their differences gradually 
widened until Jefferson retired from the cabinet. Washington 
was President, and, great and good as he was, he inclined to 
favor the Hamiltonian theory, which gave a liberal construc¬ 
tion to the powers of the President and of the general govern¬ 
ment. The adherents of Hamilton were called Federalists, 
and, as the President seemed to favor his theory, his followers 
very soon began to exhibit that general harmony of action 
which characterizes the membership of a party organization. 
They met with opposition from the outset in many of the 
measures they united in promoting ; but the opposition did 
not assume any organized form during Washington’s admin¬ 
istration. Those who opposed Hamilton’sstrong govern¬ 
ment ” policy were called anti-Federalists ; but there was 
nothing resembling the harmony of party organization among 
them. A number of Democratic societies were formed, some¬ 
thing of the character of the political societies then existing in 
France, and partaking somewhat of the nature of the local 
clubs of our day; but they had few of the characteristics of 
general party organization, although they were opposed to 
the policy of the Federalists. 

Jefferson was a candidate for the Presidency in 1796 against 
John Adams, who had held the office of Vice-President ever 
since the government was organized, and who was supported 
by the Federalists for the Presidency at the close of Washing¬ 
ton’s second term. Jefferson was an independent candidate, 
as we would say at this date, rather than the.regular nominee 
of a party; and he was generally supported by the people 
known as anti-Federalists. Adams was elected, in 1796, to¬ 
gether with a majority of Federalist members in both branches 
of congress. An account of the general monarchical policy 
of the Federalists, during the administration of Adams, has 
been given in the preceding chapter ; and it had the effect of 
bringing the anti-Federalists into closer harmony of sentiment 
and of action. They saw that the Federalists were organized 


42 


SVPERIORITY OF 


into a harmonious and powerful party, having full control of 
the government in all its departments, and that they were 
making use of their power in such manner as to retain per¬ 
manent control, to the exclusion of their opponents from all 
share in the management of the government. They witnessed 
what they regarded as dangerous aggressions upon the rights 
of the States, and upon the republican rights of the people 
under the constitution as they understood it. 

The people of that generation were pre-eminently jealous 
of their rights and liberties. They were brave, intelligent 
and aggressively hostile to every form of monarchy. Many 
of the elder and middle-aged men then living had been at 
Bunker Hill, and Saratoga, and Trenton, and Monmouth, and 
Brandywine, and Yorktown; some of them had passed through 
the dreary winter at Valley Forge; some of them had been 
followers of Sumter and Marion in the Carolina campaigns; 
and the younger voters of that generation had been brought 
up on lessons of freedom. The great bulk of the voting popu¬ 
lation in 1800 was made up of the heroes of the Revolution 
and their sons. They were not a people to submit to tyranny, 
nor to allow any power at home or abroad to trifle with their 
liberties. When they came to realize that the institutions 
of the British monarchy were taking root in the republican 
government for which many of them had fought, and when 
they saw the Federalist party conferring upon their President 
powers more arbitrary than any that George HI. had ever 
attempted to exercise over the colonies, these scarred veterans 
of the Revolution and their brave sons concluded that the 
time had come to call a halt in the march of their own govern¬ 
ment towards monarchy. Their representatives in congress 
held a caucus, in 1800, and formulated a platform of anti- 
monarchical principles, which the reader will find in the next 
chapter ; and they suggested Thomas Jefferson to the people 
as their candidate for the Presidency. The liberty-loving 
masses of that generation of intelligent freemen approved 
that republican platform, as well as the candidate suggested, 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


43 


and thus the Democratic party came into being. Jefferson 
always preferred the name of Republican ’’ for the new 
party, and it was known as the Republican, and Democratic- 
Republican, party for upwards of thirty years, when the word 
“ Republican ” was dropped, and the party h5s ever since been 
known as the Democratic party. 

A caucus of the Federalist members of congress nominated 
John Adams as the candidate of their party for re-election to 
the Presidency; but they did not venture to proclaim a formal 
platform of principles. The platform upon which the heroes 
of the Revolution stood, with Jefferson in their lead, was plain 
and explicit. There was no straddling of issues about it. It 
declared, in unmistakable language, the republican principles 
which the new party favored, and for which maiiy of its 
members had risked their lives and everything they possessed; 
and, with equal plainness, it specified the monarchical prin¬ 
ciples which the new party opposed, being the identical 
unrepublican principles which the Federalist party had 
endeavored to 2 )ut into practical operation during the ad¬ 
ministration then drawing to a close. A careful study of 
that first Democratic platform, and due consideration of the 
principles it favored and of the policy it opposed, will throw a 
fiood of light upon the principles and policies which divide 
the two great political parties of this generation. 

With the distinguished rival candidates thus placed in the 
field, there began by far the most important Presidential 
contest that ever occurred in the United States. It arose far 
above a personal strife for the honors, and emoluments, and 
powers of the government offices. It involved the fundamental 
principles of government; it was to determine whether the 
people of the United States were to have a republican gov¬ 
ernment, administered in the interest of the whole people, 
or a practical monarchy administered for the benefit of a 
favored few. A change of administration involved a radical 
change in the policy of government, and the people were 
thoroughly alive to the great issues at stake in the contest. 


44 


SUPERIORITY OF 


Intense interest was centered in the election of the members 
of the New York Legislature who were empowered to choose 
the Presidential electors for that State. It was not then, as 
now, the leading State of the IJnion ; but it was generally 
understood that the electoral vote of that State would 
determine the choice of the President. At the Presidential 
election of 1796 the solid electoral vote of New York had 
been given to Adams. In 1800, the election of members of 
the New York Legislature, upon whom it was supposed the 
choice of the next President depended, was held on A2n’il29th 
and 30th, and May 1st. The whole country awaited the 
result with intense anxiety; and, when it was announced, it 
proved to be a glorious Democratic victory. The Democrats 
regarded the contest as practically settled in favor of the 
people, and against the office-holders, bond-holders, rings, 
monopolies, monarchists and favored classes ; but the Fed¬ 
eralists, with a reluctance to surrender the official control of 
the government equaled only by their Republican followers of 
a later date, clung to a desperate hope that their candidates 
might be able to secure the electoral vote of South Carolina. 
C. 0. Pinckney of that State was on the Federalist ticket with 
Adams, and Hamilton indulged the fond hope that he would 
succeed in carrying the State against Jefferson ; in which 
event, as the constitution then stood, Pinckney might have 
reached the Presidency—a result that would have been quite 
satisfactory to Hamilton, whose relations with President 
Adams were not then of the most friendly character. How¬ 
ever, the people of South Carolina were true to the republican 
principles for which they had fought under Sumter and 
Marion, and when the time came to elect the members of the 
Legislature that was to choose the Presidential electors for 
that State the Democrats were successful. Jefferson was 
eventually declared elected, and he was the first President in¬ 
augurated at the new capitol at Washington. 

The Federalists predicted untold disasters to the country as 
the result of Democratic supremacy, just as their Republican 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION, 


45 


followers did eighty-four years later. It is a pleasure to 
record that the false prophecies of interested and disappointed 
partisans were not fulfilled in either case; and to note in 
detail the measures of policy, adopted by Jeft'erson, pursued 
for sixty years with unparalleled advantage to the country, 
and revived by President Cleveland. 


46 


SUPERIORITY OF 


CHAPTER III. 

THE JEFEERSOKIAN’-DEMOCRATIC DOCTRIHE. 

When- Thomas Jefferson was placed in nomination by the 
congressional caucus, in 1800, the representatives of the newly 
organized party, in caucus assembled, formulated and presented 
to the people the first party platform, or formal declaration of 
party principles, that ever existed in the United States. Its 
authorship is unknown to the author, but it has the ring of 
the political writings of the great founder of the Democratic 
party. Taken in connection with Jefferson’s first inaugural 
address, and his first annual message to congress, there is no 
difficulty in understanding at this day the nature and character 
of the Federalist policy, which had alarmed the people, and 
led them into the organization of a new j)arty designed to 
maintain and practice the republican principles of the con¬ 
stitution. It is a matter of profitable study to take up this 
first party platform, section by section, and consider the 
reiDublican doctrines its authors favored, and the monarchical 
practices they opposed. The platform is as follows, to wit : 

1. An inviolable preservation of the Federal constitution, 
according to tlie true sense in which it was adopted by the 
States, that in which it was advocated by its friends, and not 
that which its enemies apprehended, who, therefore, became 
its enemies. 

‘‘2. Opposition to monarchizing its features by the forms 
of its administration, Avith a view to conciliate a transition, 
first, to a President and Senate for life ; and, secondly, to an. 
hereditary tenure of those offices, and thus to worm out the 
elective principle. 

‘'3. Preservation to the States of the powers not yielded by 
them to the Union, and to the Legislature of the Union its 
constitutional share in division of powers j and resistance. 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


47 


therefore, to existing movemetits for transfer rmg all the powers 
of the States to the general government, and all of those of that 
government to the executive branch. 

‘‘4. A rigorously frugal administration of the government, 
and the application of all the possible savings of the public 
revenue to the liquidation of the public debt; and resistance, 
therefore, to all measures looking to a multiplication of officers 
and salaries, merely to create partisans and to augment the 
public deit, on the principle of its being a public blessing, 

5. Eeliance for internal defense solely upon the militia, 
till actual invasion, and for such a naval force only as may be 
sufficient to protect our coasts and harbors from depredations ; 
and opposition, therefore, to the policy of a standing army in 
time of pence ^vhich may overawe the public sentiment, and to 
a navy, which, by its own expenses, and the wars in whieh it 
will implicate us, will grind us with public burdens and sink 
us under them. 

6. Free commerce with all nations, political connection 
with none, and little or no diplomatic establishment. 

7. Opposition to linking ourselves, by new treaties, with 
quarrels of Europe, entering new fields of slaughter to preserve 
their balance, or joining in the confederacy of kings to war 
against the principles of liberty. 

8. Freedom of religion, and opposition to all maneuvers 
to bring about a legal ascendency of one sect over another. 

9. Freedom of speech, and of the press ; and opposition, 
therefore, to all violations of the constitution, to silence, by 
force, and not by reason, the complaints or criticisms, just or 
unjust, of our citizens against the conduct of their public agents. 

10. Liberal naturalization laws, under which the well 
disposed of all nations who may desire to embark their fortunes 
with us and share with us the public burdens, may have that 
opportunity, under moderate restrictions, for the development 
of honest intention, and severe ones to guard against the 
usurpation of our flag. 

“11. Encouragement of science and arts in all their 
branches, to the end that the American people may perfect 
tlieir independence of all foreign monopolies, institutions and 
influences.” 

This was a grand declaration of republican principles, and 
it was induced by the Federalist practice of the monarchical 
policies to which the new party expressly declared itself to be 


SUPERIORITY OF 


48 

opposed. This platform plainly shows the apprehension of 
the people of that generation that the Federalists intended to 
make the President and senators their own successors, during 
life, after the manner of British kings and lords ; to absorb 
the powers of the States into the general government, and 
clothe the President with regal authority ; to enter into con¬ 
federacies with kings, silence by force such complaints and 
criticisms of public officers as could not be met by reason, and 
to keep up a standing army in time of peace to overawe the 
people and hold them in subjection. This plain and bold 
declaration of principles shows that the new party professed, 
at least, to be organized in the interest of the people, and in 
opposition to the monarchical policy of the Federalists. The 
people relied on the professions of the new party, and they 
neyer had occasion to regret the trust they j^laced in Jefferson, 
who, in his inaugural address, said : 

About to enter, fellow-citizens, on the exercise of duties 
which comprehend everything dear and valuable to you, it is 
proper that you should understand what I deem the essential 
principles of our government, and consequently those which 
ought to shape its administration. I will compress them 
within the narrowest compass they will bear, stating the gen¬ 
eral principle, but not all its limitations. Equal and exact 
justice to all men, of whatever state or persuasion, religious or 
political; peace, commerce, and honest fellowship, with all 
nations—entangling alliances with none ; the support of the 
State governments in all their riglits, as the most competent 
administrations of our domestic concerns and the surest bul¬ 
warks against anti-republican tendencies ; the preservation of 
the general government in its whole constitutional vigor, as 
the sheet anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad ; a 
jealous care of the right of election by the people—a mild and 
safe corrective of abuses which are lopped by the sword of 
revolution, where peaceable remedies are unprovided ; absolute 
acquiescence in the decisions of the majority—the vital prin¬ 
ciple of republics, from which there is no appeal but to force, 
the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism ; a well- 
disciplined militia—our best reliance in peace and for the first 
moments in war, till regulars may relieve them ; the supremacy 


DEMOCRATIQ AD3nNISTRATI0N, 


49 


of the civil over the military authority ; economy in the public 
expense, that labor may be lightly burdened ; the honest pay¬ 
ment of our debts and sacred preservation of the public faith ; 
encouragement of agriculture, and of commerce as its hand¬ 
maid ; the diffusion of information and the arraignment of all 
abuses at tlie bar of public reason ; freedom of religion ; free¬ 
dom of the press ; freedom of person under the protection of 
the habeas corpus ; and trial by juries impartially selected/’ 

When the Seventli Congress assembled, on December 7, 1801, 
the Democrats had a majority in each house. It had been the 
custom of preceding Presidents to appear in person and de¬ 
liver an address to congress, after the opening of the session, 
in pursuance of the course adopted by the British sovereigns. 
President Jefferson was the first to adopt the less regal, more 
republican, and much more convenient method of communi¬ 
cating his views to congress by message—a method that has 
been followed by all subsequent Presidents. On the 8th of 
December, 1801, he submitted his first message to congress, 
he having then been in office nine months. A few quotations 
from this message will best illustrate some of the abuses of 
the Federalist party, which the new Democratic President ad¬ 
vised congress to correct. He said : 

Weighing all probabilities of expense as well as of income, 
there is reasonable ground of confidence that we may now 
safely dispense with all the internal taxes, comprehending ex¬ 
cises, stamps, auctions, licenses, carriages, and refined sugars, 
to which the postage on newspapers may be added to facilitate 
the progress of information, and that the remaining sources 
of revenue will be sufficient to provide for the support of gov¬ 
ernment, to pay the interest of the public debts, and to dis¬ 
charge the principals in shorter periods than the laws or the 
general expectation had contemplated. War, indeed, and un¬ 
toward events may change this prospect of things and call for 
expenses which the imposts could not meet; but sound princi¬ 
ples will not justify our taxing the industry of our fellow- 
citizens to accumulate treasure for wars to happen we know 
not when, and which might not perhaps happen but from the 
temptations offered by that treasure.” 

From this it appears that the first great Democratic Presi- 
4 


50 


SUPERIORITY OF 


dent was no more favorable than President Cleveland to a 
needless accumulation of money in the public treasury, entail¬ 
ing unnecessary burdens upon the people, and offering temp¬ 
tations to useless extravagance. 

Again, the first message declares : 

“ When Ave consider that this government is charged with 
the external and mutual relations only of these States ; that 
the States themselves have principal care of our persons, our 
property, and our reputation, constituting the great field of 
human concerns, we may well doubt whether our organiza¬ 
tion is not too complicated, too expensive ; Avhether offices and 
officers have not been multiplied unnecessarily, and sometimes 
injuriously to the service they were meant to promote. I will 
cause to be laid before you an essay toward a statement of 
those who, under public employment of various kinds, draw 
money from the treasury or from our citizens. Time has not 
permitted a perfect enumeration, the ramifications of office 
being too multiplied and remote to be completely traced in a first 
trialP 

What a terrible yet dignified satire is this upon the Feder¬ 
alist policy, like the modern Republican policy, of creating a 
multitude of useless offices, with lucrative salaries, for party 
purposes, and as rewards for party services ! The ramifica¬ 
tions of office were so multiplied, when the government had 
been in operation only tAvelve years, that it required more than 
one trial to fully trace them ! JSTo wonder that the burdened 
people took the alarm, and organized a party to manage the 
government in the interest of the whole population, instead of 
the favored classes. But the message continues to inform 
congress what the new President had already done, within the 
scope of his official authority, in the way of correcting abuses : 

Among those who are dependent on executive discretion, 
I have begun the reduction of Avhat was deemed necessary. 
The expenses of diplomatic agency have been considerably 
diminished. The inspectors of internal revenue, who Avere 
found to obstruct the accountability of the institution, haA^e 
been discontinued. Several agencies created by executive 
authority, on salaries fixed by that also, have been suppressed. 


DEMOCRATIC AD3IINISTRATI0N. 


51 


and should suggest the expediency of regulating that power 
by law, so as to subject its exercises to legislative inspection 
and sanction. Other reformations of the same kind will be 
pursued with that caution which is requisite in removing 
useless things, not to injure what is retained.” 

Here was reform, not promised merely to secure official 
position, but executed judiciously and fearlessly. The new 
President was curtailing the number of dependents, for the 
relief of the burdened people ; not simply turning Federal¬ 
ists out of profitable positions, and substituting his own parti¬ 
sans in their places. 

Having stated what he himself had done, and was doing, 
within the limit of executive authority. President Jefferson 
proceeded to recommend to congress what he thought it 
would be wise to do, within the limit of the legislative 
authority, as follows : 

But the groat mass of public offices is established by law, 
and, therefore, by law alone can be abolished. Should the 
Legislature think it expedient to pass this roll in review, and 
try all its parts by the test of public utility, they may be as¬ 
sured of every aid and light which executive information can 
yield. Considering the general tendency to multiply offices 
and dependencies, and to increase expense to the ultimate 
term of burden which the citizen can bear, it behooves us to 
avail ourselves of every occasion which presents itself for 
taking off the surcharge; that it never may be seen here that, 
after leaving to labor the smallest portion of its earnings on 
which it can subsist, government shall itself consume the 
residue of what it was instituted to guard.” 

How aptly this language applies to the modern high-protec¬ 
tion monopolist, who, leaving to labor the smallest portion of 
its earnings on which it can subsist, appropriates the lion’s 
share to his own palatial mansions and a round of princely 
pleasures, and then clamors for the continuance of a high- 
protective tariff for the benefit of the laborer ! 

The message continues : 

‘^In our care of the public contributions intrusted to our 


52 


SUPERIORITY OF 


direction, it would be prudent to multiply barriers against 
their dissipation, by appropriating specific sums to every 
specific purpose susceptible of definition ; by disallowing all 
applications of money varying from the appropriation in 
object or transcending it in amount; by reducing the un¬ 
defined field of contingencies, and thereby circumscribing dis¬ 
cretionary powers over money; and by bringing back to a 
single department all accountabilities for money w^here the 
examination may be prompt, efficacious and uniform.’’ 

This recommendation was directed towards the suppression 
of the loose legislation and practices of the Federalists in their 
reckless and wasteful use of the money exacted from the 
burdened people; and the setting apart of large sums to be 
used at the discretion of the President in rewarding his 
partisans. President Jefferson, in the interest of the peojole, 
invited congress to curtail his own discretionary power while 
he was in office, and at the outset of his term. Having taken 
the lead in recommending the exact and business-like plan of 
specific appropriations, he proceeded to deal with the stand¬ 
ing army, which the Federalists had organized as a political 
power. After declaring that it is neither safe nor necessary 
to keep up a standing army in times of peace, he said : 

‘^Uncertain as we must ever be of the particular point in 
our circumference where an enemy may choose to invade us, 
the only force which can be ready at every point and compe¬ 
tent to oppose them, is the body of neighboring citizens as 
formed into a militia.” 

He advised the amendment and perfection of laws regulat¬ 
ing the militia, having learned from history that a standing 
army is a constant menace to popular liberty, besides being a 
heavy burden of expense. His reliance upon the citizen 
soldiery was well founded, as has been proved in every war in 
which the country has ever been engaged. The world has 
never produced soldiers superior to the American volunteers. 

The new President advised congress to carefully consider the 
propriety of abandoning some of the fortifications already 


DEMOCRATIC AD3IINISTRATI0N, 


53 


begun Tinder Adams, and said some of them will cost so much 
ill their first erection, so much in their maintenance, and re¬ 
quire such a force to garrison them, as to make it questionable 
what is best now to be done.” 

Said the President: 

Agriciilture, manufactures, commerce and navigation, 
the four pillars of our prosperity, are the most thriving when 
left most free to individual enterprise. Protection from 
casual embarrassments, however, may sometimes be seasonably 
interposed.” 

President Jefferson recognized the princijile of protection in 
times of need ; but the modern Republican doctrine, of main¬ 
taining high protective duties for the further enrichment of 
stalwart monopolies, found no favor in his sight. No Ameri¬ 
can ever exhibited greater solicitude for the protection of his 
fellow countrymen from unnecessary exactions. His doctrine 
was that the less government meddles with agriculture, manu¬ 
factures, commerce and navigation, the better they will thrive 
under the operation of the natural laws of supply and demand ; 
and all experience proves that he was right in his wonderful 
foresight. 

He called attention to the judiciary system then in operation, 
and to ‘^the inestimable institution of juries,” saying : 

“ Their impartial selection also being essential to their 
value, we ought further to consider whether that is sufficiently 
secured in those States where they are named by a marshal 
depending on executive will, or designated by the courts or by 
officers dependent on them.” 

He next took up the subject of the naturalization laws, and 
earnestly advised the modification of the illiberal Federalist 
law requiring a residence of fourteen years, and providing 
other unreasonable restrictions. 

This first message of the first Democratic President has been 
quoted from liberally, in order that the intelligent reader may 
have some adequate conception of the far-reaching monarch¬ 
ical tendencies of the Federalist institutions which called the 


54 


SUPERIORITY OF 


Democratic party into being, and that he may understand the 
honest fidelity which actuated the early leaders of that great 
party in making ours a government for the benefit of the 
masses, instead of favored classes. The fact that the abuses 
referred to in the message existed is conclusively proved by the 
President calling upon congress to correct them; and they 
grew up under the Federalist dominion, for that party had 
shaped the policy of the government from the beginning. 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION, 


55 


CHAPTER IV. 

THE UNITED STATES IN 1800. 

Having presented the political creed of the Democratic 
party, as set forth in its first platform, together with the in¬ 
augural address and first message of its first President, it will 
be a matter of interest and instruction, as well as of gratifica¬ 
tion to modern Democrats, to consider the fidelity with which 
it was followed during the administration of Jefferson, and 
subsequent Democratic administrations. Before entering 
upon this pleasant review, however, it is important to briefly 
note the condition and extent of the country when the Dem¬ 
ocratic party began to administer the government. 

There were but thirteen States when the government of the 
United States was organized in 1789, under the constitution. 
Two of these, North Carolina and Rhode Island, had at first 
rejected the constitution ; but the former came into the 
Union in November, 1789, and the latter in May, 1790. In 
1791, Vermont was admitted as the first new State. Kentucky 
was admitted in 1792, and Tennessee in 1796. In 1800, when 
Jefferson was elected President, the American Union was, 
therefore, composed of sixteen States, and it owned no terri¬ 
tory west of the Mississippi River, nor south of the thirty-first 
parallel of north latitude, being the northern boundary of the 
present State of Florida. The States of New Hampshire, 
Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New 
Jersey and Delaware gave their full electoral votes to Adams; 
New York, Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, South Carolina 
and Georgia gave their full electoral votes to Jefferson ; Penn¬ 
sylvania gave eight of her electoral votes to Jefferson, and 
seven to Adams; Maryland gave five votes to each ; while 


56 


SUPERIORITY OF 


North Carolina gave eight votes to Jefferson and four to 
Adams. 

The entire population of the United States, according to 
the census taken in 1800, was 5,308,483, being less than the 
population of the State of New York to-day. Virginia was 
then the leading State, having a population of 880,200 ; Penn¬ 
sylvania was second, with a population of 602,365 ; New York, 
589,051 ; North Carolina, 478,103 ; Massachusetts, 422,845 ; 
South Carolina, 345,591 ; Maryland, 341,548 ; Connecticut, 
251,002; Kentucky, 220,955 ; New Jersey, 211,149; New 
Hampshire, 183,858 ; Georgia, 162,686 ; Vermont, 154,465 ; 
Tennessee, 105,602; Rhode Island, 69,122 ; Delaware, 
64,273. The remaining population was scattered in the 
territory outside of the several States. . There were no great 
centers of population at that date. Philadelphia was the 
largest city, having 9,868 dwellings and 81,009 inhabitants; 
New York had about 50,000 population, and Boston, 25,000 ; 
Charleston had less than 20,000, and Baltimore about the 
same. The number of newspapers published in the United 
States at that time was about 200 ; the whole number of post- 
offices 903, and the whole extent of post-routes in miles, 
20,817. The debt of the government, in 1800, was large in 
proportion to the population and their aggregate wealth, being 
$82,976,294.35. 

There were no railroads, telegraphs or steamboats in 1800. 
For transportation, the people were dependent upon wagons, 
pack horses, and the water highways provided by nature. The 
country west of the Alleghenies was spacious and fertile, and 
was rapidly attracting an industrious and thrifty population 
who were entirely dependent upon the Mississippi River for 
an outlet to the markets of the East, and of the world ; and 
that great natural water highway, for hundreds of miles from 
its mouth, was owned and exclusively controlled by a foreign 
power. Prior to 1763, an immense region of undefined limits, 
lying west of the Mississippi, and known by the name of 
Louisiana, belonged to France. By a treaty made in 1763 it 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


57 


was ceded to Spain, so that, in 1800, Spain owned the territory 
west of the Mississippi, and all of the region lying east of that 
river and south of the thirty-first parallel of north latitude, 
embracing the entire gulf coast. In 1800, the immense 
territory known as Louisiana was re-ceded by Spain to France. 
The people of the United States, by a treaty made in 1795, 
had secured from Spain the right of deposit of their exports 
and imports at New Orleans for three years, after which the 
privilege was either to be continued, or an equivalent place 
assigned on another part of the banks of the Mississippi. 
Frequent difficulties had arisen between the people of the 
United States and the Spanish population and authorities, 
respecting the southwestern boundary line and the navigation 
of the Mississippi, then of vital importance to the population 
west of the Alleghenies. The re-cession of Louisiana to 
France, created a necessity for further security of the im¬ 
portant privileges of navigation and deposit. To further 
complicate affairs, and give additional embarrassment to the 
Western population, hostilities were about to be renewed 
between France and England, and Louisiana would be an easy 
prey for the latter power with its superior naval advantages. 
The prosperity and peace of our people were perpetually 
menaced by the contiguity of an immense and valuable region, 
which each of three great European powers ardently coveted. 
The situation is ably stated in the great work popularly known 
as Blaine’s Book,” being entitled Twenty Years of Con¬ 
gress,” by James G. Blaine, from the first volume of which 
frequent extracts will be found herein. On page 2 Mr. 
Blaine says : 

‘‘The Mississippi Eiver was our western limit. On its 
farther shore, from the Lake of the Woods to the Balize, we 
met the flag of Spain. Our southern border was the 31st 
parallel of latitude, and the Spanish Floridas, stretching 
across to the Mississippi, lay between us and the Gulf of 
Mexico. We acquired from Spain the right of deposit for our 
exports and imports at New Orleans, but the citizens of the 


58 


SUPERIORITY OF 


Union who lived west of the Alleghenies were discontented 
and irritated to find a foreign power practically controlling 
their trade by intercepting their access to the sea.’’ 

The aggressive aims of England, and her opportunity to 
seize Louisiana, in the event of the then brewing war with 
France, are exhibited in the following language of Napoleon 
Bonaparte : 

I know the full value of Louisiana, and have been desirous 
of repairing the fault of the French negotiators who lost it in 
1763. . . . The English wish to take possession of it, and it is 
thus they will begin the war. . . . They have already twenty 
ships of the line in the Gulf of Mexico. . . . The conquest of 
Louisiana would be easy. . . . The English have successively 
taken from France the Canadas, Cape Breton, Newfoundland, 
Nova Scotia, and the richest portions of Asia. But they shall 
not have the Mississippi, which they covet.” 

In Blaine’s Book, page 9, is the following : 

^‘England’s acquisition of Louisiana would have proved in 
the highest degree embarrassing, if not disastrous, to the 
Union. At that time the forts of Spain, transferred to 
France, and thence to the United States, were on the east 
side of the Mississippi, hundreds of miles from its mouth. 
If England had seized Louisiana, as Bonaparte feared, the 
Floridas, cut off from the other colonies of Spain, would cer¬ 
tainly have fallen into her hands by easy and prompt negotia¬ 
tion, as they did, a few years after, into the hands of the 
United States. England would thus have had her colonies 
planted on the three land-sides of the Union, while on the 
ocean-side her formidable navy confronted the young republic. 

‘‘No colonial acquisition ever made by her on any continent 
has been so profitable to her commerce, and so strengthening 
to her military position, as that of Louisiana would have 
proved.” 

The reader of even meager intelligence will readily under¬ 
stand that the United States, with a population slightly ex¬ 
ceeding five millions, was surrounded from without by dan¬ 
gerous and embarrassing foreign environments, when Jeffer¬ 
son became President, and that the people were loaded from 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


59 


■within by burdensome taxation, a heavy public debt, a stand¬ 
ing army, a host of unnecessary officials, and all the mo¬ 
narchical institutions of the Federalists, whilst illiberal 
naturalization laws excluded foreign capital and muscle, and 
freedom of speech and of the press was seriously menaced. 

If the monarchical Federalists had been permitted to con¬ 
tinue in control of the government after 1800, and monarch¬ 
ical England had secured Louisiana, as she undoubtedly would 
have done in view of the bitter hostility of the Federalists to 
its acquisition, it is not matter of conjecture to say that the 
limits of the United States would be less than one-third of its 
present boundaries, and that every semblance of republican 
government within its limits would have long since disap¬ 
peared. 


CO 


SUPERIORITY OF 


CHAPTER V. 

Jefferson’s administration. 

In pursuance of the patriotic and unselfish recommenda¬ 
tions of the first great Democratic President, the Democratic 
congress set about promptly to the work of legislating in the 
interest of the people. It was an anti-monarchical congress, 
and its great work was well done. Let eyery thoughtful 
reader consider its magnitude and importance. At its first 
session, it wiped out the odious Alien Laws, the Sedition Law 
having died by its own limitation on the day of Jefferson’s in¬ 
auguration. It modified the naturalization laws, so that a 
foreigner who came here to cast his lot in the young republic 
could become a citizen on five years’ residence. "Whatever 
may be said against the liberality of our naturalization laws, 
when our country has grown to a population of sixty millions, 
it is very certain that, at the beginning of the century, we 
greatly needed the sturdy foreign element that came in under 
the encouragement of the liberal naturalization laws approved 
by President Jefferson. They came chiefly from Ireland, 
Scotland, and Germany, bringing their families and posses¬ 
sions, and habits of industry and thrift, and their children 
intermarried with the children of native-born Americans, and 
largely contributed to making our population industrious, 
prosperous, and happy. The foreign-born reader will learn 
before he concludes this volume that he is indebted to the 
Democratic party for every law that was ever enacted in the 
United States for the encouragement of foreigners. 

That same congress, at its first session, gave the death-blow 
to a burdensome, useless, and dangerous standing army. It 
provided by law for fixing a military peace establishment, con- 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


61 


sisting of one regiment of artillery, two regiments of infantry, 
and a corps of engineers ; and made provision for a military 
academy, to be located at West Point, for the tliorongb in¬ 
struction of a competent number in the military arts. 

It repealed the several acts of Federalist legislation laying 
internal taxes on stills, distilled spirits, refined sugars, car¬ 
riages, stamped paper, auction sales, and licenses to retailers. 

It made provision for the payment of the public debt by re¬ 
quiring the annual appropriation of seven millions and three 
hundred thousand dollars to a sinking-fund to redeem the 
obligations of the government. The Federalist policy of main¬ 
taining a permanent creditor class was obnoxious to the early 
Democrats. The theory of the Federalists, like that of their 
Eepublican successors, was that ^^a national debt is a national 
blessing,” because every bond-holder, as they argued, is per¬ 
sonally interested in maintaining the prosperity of the debtor 
who owes him money; but the early Democrats, as well as 
their modern successors, preferred to rely upon the more solid 
basis of the patriotism of the people for the maintenance of 
the government. Purchased allegiance never was Democratic. 

That same congress, at its first session, repealed a judiciary 
act creating circuit judges, passed by the Federalists in pur¬ 
suance of their extravagant and unpatriotic policy of creating 
a multiplicity of government offices for the reward of partisan 
workers. A careful statement of the business then transacted 
in the circuit courts of the United States, prepared at the sug¬ 
gestion of President Jefferson, made it manifest that the cir¬ 
cuit judges were totally unnecessary for the prompt transac¬ 
tion of the business of the courts ; and, being a useless burden 
upon the people, the offices were discontinued. 

In short, that congress took prompt and effective action 
upon the recommendations of the President in his first mes¬ 
sage, looking toward a reduction of the diplomatic corps, the 
abolition of useless offices, the reduction of the army, the ex¬ 
tinguishment of the debt, the discontinuance of burdensome 
taxes, and the general relief of the people. Provision was 


62 


SUPERIORITY OF 


made for the erection of liglithouses for the benefit of com¬ 
merce, for altering and establishing post-roads, and for the 
more secure carriage of the mails ; also, for the admission of 
Ohio into the Union as a State. 

Upon the subject of the civil service, and the considerations 
that should govern the appointing power in the selection of 
government officials and employes. President Jefferson ex¬ 
pressed himself as follows, to wit : 

^^Whenitis considered that, during the late administra¬ 
tion, those who were not of a particular sect of politics were 
excluded from all office; when, by a steady pursuit of this 
measure, nearly the whole offices of the United States were 
monopolized by that sect; when the public sentiment at 
length declared itself, and burst open the doors of honor and 
confidence to those whose opinions they approved ; was it to be 
imagined that this monopoly of office was to be continued in 
the hands of the minority ? Does it violate their eqtial rights 
to assert some rights in the majority also ? Is it political in¬ 
tolerance to claim a proportionate share in the direction of 
the public affairs ? If a due participation of office is a matter 
of right, how are vacancies to be obtained ? Those by death 
are few, by resignation none. Can any other mode than that 
of removal be proposed ? This is a painful office ; but it is 
made my duty and I meet it as such. I proceed in the opera¬ 
tion with deliberation and inquiry, that it may injure the best 
men least, and effect the purposes of justice and public utility 
with the least private distress. ... It would have been a 
circumstance of great relief had I found a moderate participa¬ 
tion of office in the hands of the majority. I would gladly 
have left to time and accident to raise them to their just share. 
But their total exclusion calls for prompter corrections. I 
shall correct the procedure ; but that done, return with joy to 
that state of things when the only questions concerning a can¬ 
didate shall be : Is he honest ? Is he capable ? Is he faith¬ 
ful to the constitution ?” 

The outcry of political intolerance ” raised by the old 
Federalists, in 1801, when President Jefferson turned some 
members of that party out of office to afford the majority party 
a chance of participation in the administration, was taken up 
eighty-four years afterwards by the legitimate offspring of the 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


63 


old Federalists, who grew wrathfully indignant at the pre¬ 
sumption of President Cleveland in removing offensive par¬ 
tisans from the offiees monopolized for nearly a quarter of a 
century by the Republicans, to the total exclusion of the 
Democrats. It is common to attribute to the Democrats the 
inauguration of the policy expressed in the words : To the 
victors belong the spoils,” but it clearly appears, by the fact 
that Mr. Jefferson found none but Federalists in office, that 
the policy of using government offices as rewards for parti¬ 
san services was in vigorous operation under the Federalists, 
before the Democratic party was organized. Mr. Cleveland 
found none but Republicans in office, just as Mr. Jefferson 
found none but Federalists. 

The compiler of the ‘SStatesman’s Manual” attempts to 
excuse President Adams by the statement that most of the 
persons who Aver© in office when Mr. Jefferson came into power 
were those who had been appointed by George Washington, 
and continued in their places by Mr. Adams, who made very 
few removals, and none for party reasons. ” An exceedingly 
lame apology for President Adams, since it was impossible to 
remove for party reasons ” officers who belonged to his own 
party. It is simply an attempt to conceal under the honored 
name of Washington the policy of distributing the government 
offices amongst the partisans of the President. If the practice 
deserves condemnation, the fact remains that it was in opera¬ 
tion before the Democratic party was organized, and that no 
party ever pursued it with more marked exclusion of political 
opponents than the Republican party. The author of the 
‘‘ Statesman’s Manual,” referring to Mr. Jefferson, makes the 
following admission, viz.: 

But it is due to him to say, that although he confined his 
appointments to office to his political friends, as did generally 
his successors. Presidents Madison and Monroe, his removals 
of political opponents from office, during the eight years of 
his administration, were but few in number, compared with 
those of more recent administrations.” 


64 


SUPERIORITY OF 


When the Republican party came into power, in 1861, it 
had no scruples about making a clean sweep of Democratic 
officials for party reasons,” and filling their places with Re¬ 
publicans. 

President Jefferson had been in office about a year, when 
the intelligence reached the United States that Spain had re¬ 
ceded the Louisiana territory to France, as mentioned in the 
last preceding chapter. In October, 1802, the Spanish au¬ 
thorities at Uew Orleans issued a proclamation declaring that 
the right of deposit secured to the people of the United States, 
by the treaty of 1795, no longer existed. This created intense 
excitement, particularly amongst the population west of the 
Alleghenies. It became known that the terms of the treaty 
between the tw^o great foreign powers required Louisiana to be 
delivered over by Spain to France ^^in its present state,” and 
that was understood to mean that it was to be turned over 
free from the American privilege of the right of deposit at 
New Orleans. This privilege was a vital element in the pros¬ 
perity of the growing West, and the deprivation was keenly 
felt. The Federalists immediately took up the subject of 
the embarrassments of the Western people, and undertook 
to bring the question into party politics, with the hope of 
securing the aid of the western States of Ohio, Kentucky and 
Tennessee, in restoring them to lost power. But President 
Jefferson was equal to the emergency. The Hon. Thomas V. 
Cooper, Chairman Republican State Committee of Pennsyl¬ 
vania, in his work entitled American Politics,” referring to 
Mr. Jefferson, at page 18, says : 

He stands in history as one of the best politicians our 
land has ever seen, and then as now no one could successfully 
draw the line between the really able politician and the states¬ 
man. He was accepted as both.” 

He promptly took steps to maintain the integi-ity of his 
party in the only statesmanlike way of strengthening a party, 
viz., by measures of benefit to the people. He did not follow 


DE3I0CRATIG ADIIINISTRATION, 


65 


the example of the Federalist leaders, by taking advantage of 
the hostility of the people towards Spain and France, to raise 
a vast partisan army under the pretense of preparing for war. 
He took a very different and much wiser course. He named 
James Monroe as minister plenipotentiary to France, to act in 
conjunction with Mr. Livingston, the American minister at 
Paris, to negotiate the purchase of that portion of the French 
territory east of the Mississippi, and provide for such division 
of the river course as would bring New Orleans within the 
territory of the United States, and secure freedom of naviga¬ 
tion. That was the full extent of what was expected to be 
accomplished by the mission of Mr. Monroe. His nomination 
was confirmed by the Senate; and Congress, at the request of 
the President, appropriated two millions of dollars for the 
objects of the mission. 

Napoleon was then at the head of the French government, 
which was on the eve of a war with England. Conscious 
that he could not hold his American possessions against the 
superior navy of the British, and determined that England 
should not secure the Mississippi, he ordered the Marquis de 
Marbois to negotiate with the American ministers for the 
sale of his entire American possessions to the United States. 
He needed money, and determined to raise it by the sale of a 
valuable possession that must otherwise fall into the hands of 
his most formidable enemy. The history of that interesting, 
important, and prompt negotiation need not be given here in 
detail. It resulted in the purchase of French Louisiana, in 
the face of the most intense opposition from the Federalist 
party. Upon the subject of this purchase, its extent and 
importance, the statesmanship of Jefferson in its management, 
and the spirit of hostility exhibited by the Federalists, the 
following extract is taken from Blaine’s Book, beginning on 
page 4, viz.: 

The United States, in consequence of favoring circum¬ 
stances growing out of European complications, and the bold 


66 


SUPERIORITY OF 


and competent statesmanship of Jefferson, obtained a territory 
larger in area than that which was wrested from the British 
crown by the revolutionary war. 

^^It seems scarcely credible that the acquisition of Louisi¬ 
ana by Jefferson was denounced with a bitterness surpassing 
the partisan rancor with which later generations have been 
familiar. No abuse was too malignant, no epithet too coarse, 
no imprecation too savage, to be employed by the assailants 
of the great philosophic statesman who laid so broad and deep 
the foundations of his country’s growth and grandeur. Presi¬ 
dent of a feeble republic, contending for a prize which was 
held by the greatest military power of Europe, and whose 
possession was coveted by the greatest naval power of the 
world, Mr. Jefferson, through his chosen and trusted agents, 
so conducted his important negotiation, that the ambition of 
the United States was successfully interposed between the 
necessities of the one and the aggressive designs of the other. 
Willing to side with either of those great powers for the ad¬ 
vantage of his own country, not underrating the dangers of 
war, yet ready to engage in it for the control of the great 
water-way to the Gulf, the Peesident made the lakgest 

CONQUEST EVER PEACEFULLY ACHIEVED and at a COSt SO 
small that the total sum expended for the entire territory does 
01 ot equal the revenue which has since been collected on its soil 
in A SINGLE MONTH in time of great public peril. 'J he 
country thus acquired forms to-day (1884.) the States of 
Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, 
Minnesota west of the Mississippi, Colorado north of the 
Arkansas, besides the Indian Territory and the Territories of 
Dakota, Wyoming and Montana. ... It was certainly our 
purchase of Louisiana that enabled us to secure the Spanish 
title to the shores of the Pacific, and without that title we 
could hardly have maintained our claim. As against Eng¬ 
land our title seemed to us to be perfect, but as against Spain 
our case was not so strong. The purchase of Louisiana may 
therefore be fairly said to have carried with it and secured to 
us our possession of Oregon. 

‘‘The acquisition of Louisiana brought incalculable wealth, 
power, and prestige to the Union, and onust always he re¬ 
garded as THE MASTER STROKE OF POLICY which advanced the 
United States from a comparatively feeble nation, lying be¬ 
tween the Atlantic and Mississippi, to a continental power of 
assured strength and bouniless promise.” 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


67 


Thus wrote the Hon. James G. Blaine, when he was 
candidly writing history. He further says, at page 11 : 

Fortunately for the United States, the patriotic and far- 
seeing administration of Mr. Jefferson was as energetic in 
confirming as it had been in acquiring our title to the in¬ 
valuable domain.” 

He points out the promptness of the Democratic congress 
in authorizing tlie President to take possession of Louisiana, 
and if need, be, to employ the army and navy, and to call 
upon the several States for eighty thousand volunteers. Says 
Mr. Blaine : 

It was a wise and energetic measure for the defense of our 
newly acquired territory, which, in the disturbed condition of 
Europe, with all the great powers arming from Gibraltar to 
the Baltic, might at any moment be invaded or imperiled. 
The conflict of arms did not occur until nine years after ; and 
it is a curious and not unimportant fact, that the most 
notable defeat of the British troops in the second war of In¬ 
dependence, as the struggle of 1812 has been well named, 
occurred on the soil of the territory for whose protection the 
original precaution had been taken by Jefferson. With all 
these preparations for defense, Mr. Jefferson did not wait to 
have our title to Louisiana questioned or limited. He set to 
work at once to proclaim it throughout the length and breadth 
of the territory which had been ceded, and to the treaty of 
cession he gave the most liberal construction. According to the 
President, Louisiana stretched as far to the'northward as the 
Lake of the Woods ; towards the west as far as the Eio Grande 
in the lower part, and, in the upper part, to the main chain of 
the mountains dividing the waters of the Pacific from the 
waters of the Atlantic. To establish our sovereignty to the 
shores of the Pacific became a matter of instant solicitude 
with the watchful and patriotic President.” 

After thus commending the policy of Mr. Jefferson in per¬ 
manently securing Louisiana, and his solicitude to extend our 
title beyond the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific, Mr. Blaine 
proceeds to explain the great Lewis and Clarke expedition, 
set on foot by Mr. Jefferson, and says : 


68 


SUPERIORITY OF 


‘‘ The success of the Lewis and Clarke expedition aided 
greatly in sustaining our title to the Oregon country.” 

The author of the “ Statesman’s Manual/’ at page 242, says: 

Mr. Jefferson himself prepared the instructions for Cap¬ 
tain Lewis, which were drawn up with much wisdom and 
forecast. The expedition was eminently successful in geo¬ 
graphical discoveries, and furnished the first particular infor¬ 
mation respecting the extensive country between the Mississippi 
and the Pacific Ocean.” 

Notwithstanding all of the disasters predicted by the disap¬ 
pointed Federalists as the outcome of Democratic supremacy, 
the first four years of Democratic administration were so 
manifestly advantageous to the country, and so highly satis¬ 
factory to the people, that Jefferson received the unanimous 
nomination of his party for a second term, and he was re¬ 
elected by an electoral vote of 16:3 to 14 for C. 0. Pinckney, 
the Federalist candidate. New Hampshire, Vermont, Mas¬ 
sachusetts, Ehode Island, New York, New Jersey, Pennsyl¬ 
vania, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolinu, Georgia, 
Tennessee, Kentucky and Ohio each gave its full electoral 
vote to Jefferson ; Maryland gave him nine votes and Pinckney 
two; Connecticut and Delaware were the only States that 
cast their full electoral votes against him, the former giving 
nine and the latter three to Pinckney. 

In his second inaugural address, Mr. Jefferson referred with 
satisfaction to what had been accomplished during his first 
term, cheerfully giving full credit to congress and his asso¬ 
ciates in office for their part in the great work. He said : 

The suppression of unnecessary offices, of useless estab¬ 
lishments and expenses, enabled ns to discontinue our internal 
taxes. These, covering our land with officers, and opening 
our doors to their intrusions, had already begun that process 
of domiciliary vexation, which, once entered, is scarcely to be 
restrained from reaching successively every article of produce 
and property.” 

He said the revenue derived from duties on foreign luxuries 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


C9 


'^enables us to support the current expenses of the govern¬ 
ment, to fullill contracts with foreign nations, to extinguish 
the native right of soil within our limits, to extend those 
limits, and to apply such a surplus to our public debts as 
places at a short day their final redemption.” 

During President Jefferson’s second term, Europe was in¬ 
volved in the terrible wars in which Napoleon was the pro¬ 
minent figure, and they seriously affected the commerce of 
the United States. In November, 1806, Napoleon issued the 
Berlin Decree, which declared the British Isles in a state of 
blockade, and, consequently, every neutral vessel trading 
therewith was liable to seizure by the French cruisers. The 
following year, the British government retaliated by issuing 
Orders in Council, forbidding all direct trade from America 
to any part of Europe at war with Great Britain, but allowing 
goods to be lauded in England and re-exported to the con¬ 
tinent, subject to a duty. In December following, Napoleon 
issued the Milan Decree, subjecting to seizure every vessel that 
should touch at a British port, or pay duty to the British 
government, or submit to be searched by a British man-of-war. 
Our foreign commerce was chiefly with England and France, 
and the hostile edicts of these great rival powers subjected 
American vessels to almost certain seizure from one or the 
other. In this state of affairs, congress, at the instance of 
President Jefferson, passed the Emhargo Act, prohibiting all 
American vessels from sailing for foreign ports, and prohibiting 
the taking out of cargoes on foreign vessels. This measure pro¬ 
duced serious discontent amongst the people directly interested 
in commerce, and was a burden to the whole country, as it 
cut off our foreign trade ; and the ever watchful and ever 
hostile Federalists raised a terrible clamor against the admin¬ 
istration. England was then largely dependent on America 
for supplies needed in carrying on her war, and it was thought 
that the Embargo would force her to revoke the Orders in 
Council, and that it was a proper measure of security. The 
measure was generally received with favor outside of New Eng- 


70 


SUPERIORITY OF 


land ; but in that section it was used with considerable effect 
by the Federalists in working up a hostile feeling against the 
administration, and even against the Union. In June, 1808, 
Mr. Jefferson wrote a letter to Ur. Leib, in which he said : 

The Federalists are now playing a game of the most mis¬ 
chievous tendency, without, perhaps, being themselves aware 
of it. They are endeavoring to convince England that we 
suffer more by the embargo than they do, and that, if they 
will only hold out awhile, we must abandon it. It is true, 
the time will come when we must abandon it; but if this is 
before the repeal of the Orders in Council, we must abandon 
it only for a state of war.” 

During the embargo period, the Presidential election came 
on, and the Federalists succeeded in securing the electoral 
votes of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and 
Connecticut, on that issue, as well as the vote of Delaware, 
two votes from Maryland, and three from North Carolina, 
making in all 47 votes for Pinckney against for Madison, 
the Democratic candidate. 

John Quincy Adams had resigned his seat as United States 
Senator from the State of Massachusetts, on account of the 
dissatisfaction exhibited by reason of his support of the ad¬ 
ministration and the embargo measure. In February, 1809, 
this distinguished patriot informed Mr. Jefferson that the 
Federalists of New England were maturing plans for resisting 
the embargo, if it was not repealed, and even withdrawing 
from the Union. 

In the ‘"Statesman’s Manual,” Yol. L, page 262, is the fol¬ 
lowing : 

“ The danger thus threatening the Union was deemed para¬ 
mount to all other considerations, and the President, with his 
cabinet, concluded that it would be better to modify their in¬ 
terdiction of commerce in such a way that, while employment 
was afforded to American vessels. Great Britain and France 
should still feel the loss of American commerce. Congress 
accordingly passed a law for repealing the embargo, after the 
15th of March, as to all nations except France and Great Brit- 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


71 


ain, and interdicting with them all commercial intercourse 
whatever. . . . This measure has always since gone under the 
name of the Non-Intercourse Law.” 

This action of the administration is mentioned more par¬ 
ticularly as illustrating the Democratic policy in its treatment 
of a section which feels aggrieved to the point of resisting 
federal authority. The policy is to meet aggrieved fellow- 
counti-ymen with concessions rather than with bayonets. 

Jefferson’s second term, like his first, was busily devoted to 
the interests of the whole people, and was characterized hy 
many beneficial and highly important non-partisan events. 
Towards its close, he received addresses from the Legislatures 
of Vermont, New Jersey, Pennsylvania. Maryland, and Geor¬ 
gia, and from the Senate of New York, and the House of 
Delegates of Virginia, requesting him to serve a third term, 
but he declined to be a candidate in conformity with the pre¬ 
cedent established by Washington. 

No other administration can bear comparison with that of 
Jefferson in the blessings it bestowed upon the people of the 
United States. Mr. Blaine has eloquently portrayed the in¬ 
calculable advantages arising from the acquisition of Louisiana, 
and he has freely employed such words as patriotic,” ‘^far- 
seeing,” “watchful,” “ energetic,” and such phrases as “ bold 
and competent statesmanship” and “great philosophic states¬ 
man,” as properly descriptive of the man and of his policy. 
Deserving as he and his party are of the praises bestowed upon 
them by this great modern Republican leader, for the acquisi¬ 
tion of Louisiana, that measure was by no means the great¬ 
est achievement of this greatest of all the Presidents. To him 
the American people are indebted for the first practical illus¬ 
tration of the great principle that republican government is 
instituted for the benefit of the people, and that its offices arc 
public trusts to be employed only for the public good; that 
the only true road to public prosperity and general content¬ 
ment is to administer the government in the interest of the 
people, and not for the benefit of office-holders, monopolists. 


72 


SUPERIORITY OF 


and fayored classes ; that the local State governments are best 
adapted for the security of the people in their business, their 
personal rights, and their domestic atfairs ; that the people can 
always be trusted to support the right when left to the free¬ 
dom of their own wills ; that unrestricted public discussion, in 
the press and on the stump, is the surest, safest, most free, 
and most efficient corrective of abuses of power, as well as of 
licentiousness; that loyalty purchased by official patronage and 
grants of special privileges to favored classes is mere parti¬ 
sanship and not patriotism; that popular discontent rarely 
assumes formidable proportions or threatens domestic peace 
without Just cause, and the proper cure is removal of abuses 
rather than coercion; that the masses are generally honest, 
reasonable, inherently fair and Just, capable of self-govern¬ 
ment, and loyally devoted to the government that treats the 
people fairly ; and that the defense and protection of a country 
in times of war can be most safely entrusted to the great toil¬ 
ing masses, whose labor makes it prosperous in times of peace. 

President Jefferson’s administration was singularly free 
from any taint of Nepotism. He made no attempt, and ex¬ 
hibited no desire, to enlarge the powers of the executive, and 
never exercised them for the benefit of himself or of his 
family. In the language of one of his critics, his policy was 
characterized by ^Mmplicit confidence in the virtues of the 
people, and an unlimited faith in their intelligence and ca¬ 
pacity for self-government.” 

He stands out prominently above all the distinguished men 
Avhose names adorn the pages of American history as the 
GREAT EEPUBLiCAJ^ ; and his administration gave the Ameri¬ 
can people their first gratifying experience of a government 
by the people for the people—a government that was republi¬ 
can in fact as well as in form and name. 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION, 


73 


CHAPTER VI. 

STATE RIGHTS AND NATIONALISM. 

The relations between the governments of the several States 
and the general, or federal, or national government of the Unit¬ 
ed States, are very imperfectly understood by the masses of the 
American people. Very few citizens realize the full measure 
of their dependence uiion the local governments of the States, 
in their business and their every-day affairs, and fewer still 
appreciate that the State governments are the chief pillars 
of support of republicanism, in our complicated system of 
government. 

The original thirteen States were separate and independ¬ 
ent sovereignties before the federal government came into 
existence. Each was provided with its executive, legislative, 
and judicial departments; each had its own separate system 
of laws for the protection of the life, liberty, property, and 
reputation of its citizens; and each was supreme within its 
own limits. They had been colonies of Great Britain, and 
when the war for their independence was brought to a suc¬ 
cessful close, no one or more of these States had any lawful 
supremacy over the citizens of any other State. Each was 
an independent sovereignty, having unquestioned supremacy 
within its own limits. 

Delegates chosen by the people of the several States met 
together in convention in the year 1787, and, after long con¬ 
sultation and debate, they succeeded in framing a constitution 
which was to form the basis of a general government over 
such States as should separately ratify it. The ratification of 
the proposed constitution was the separate and independent 
act of each particular State. The last article of the constitu- 


74 


SUPERIORITY OF 


tion made provision for its ratification in the language fol¬ 
lowing, to wit : 

The ratification of the conventions of nine States shall be 
sufficient for the establishment of this constitution betAveen 
the States so ratifying the same.’’ 

The framers of the constitution contemplated the probability 
of its rejection by one or more of the then existing thirteen 
States ; they recognized the undoubted right of each State to 
reject or adopt it, as its people might choose; and they 
provided that the general government should not come into 
existence until nine States had ratified the constitution, and 
then its authority was to extend only over such States as 
ratified it. 

By virtue of its ratification of the constitution, each State 
voluntarily surrendered a portion of its sovereignty, or su¬ 
preme power, to the general government; but it still re¬ 
tained its separate existence and separate government within 
its own boundaries, and it retained all of the rights of an 
independent sovereign, except such as it granted to the 
general government by the terms and provisions of the 
constitution. This is plainly set forth in the Tenth Article 
of the Amendments to the Constitution, which is as follows^ 
to wit: 

Art. X. The powers not delegated to the United States 
by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are 
reserved to the States respectively or to the people.” 

In the case of the United States vs. Cruihslianlc et al., 
decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1875, 
and reported in 92 U. S. 542, the late Chief Justice Waite 
said : 

‘^The people of the United States resident within any State 
are subject to two governments ; one State, and the other 
National; but there need be no conflict between the two. 
The powers which one possesses, the other does not. They 
are established for different purposes and have different juris¬ 
dictions. . . . 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


75 


^^Tho government of the United States is one of delegated 
powers alone. Its authority is defined and limited by the 
constitution. All powers not granted to it by that instrument 
are reserved to the States or the people. No rights can be 
acquired under the constitution or laws of the United States, 
except such as tlie government of the United States has the 
authority to grant or secure. All that cannot be so granted 
or secured are left under the protection of the States.’’ 

At page 553, it is said : 

“The very highest duty of the States, when they entered 
into the Union under the constitution, was to protect all 
persons within their boundaries in the enjoyment of the ^un¬ 
alienable rights with which they were endowed by their Cre¬ 
ator.’ Sovereignty, for this purpose, rests alone with the 
States.” 

The powers delegated to the United States are set out in 
section 8, of article I. of the constitution, and the powers 
expressly denied to the federal government are stated in sec¬ 
tion 9, of the same article, and in articles I. to XI. of 
amendments to the constitution ; whilst the powers expressly 
denied to the States are stated in section 10 of art. I. 

These delegated and prohibited powers are necessarily 
stated in general terms, as it was impossible to specify each 
particular power granted or denied; so that the door was un¬ 
avoidably left open for wide and honest differences of opinion 
upon many subjects of governmental power. These dif¬ 
ferences entered largely into the formation of political parties 
amongst the people, and lie at the foundation of the creeds 
and policies of the two great parties now in existence. 

All concede that the people of any State have the power to 
enact laws for themselves, to operate upon all persons and 
property within the boundaries of such State, provided such 
laws do not conflict with the constitution of the United States, 
and the federal laws and treaties made in pursuance thereof ; 
and that, within such limitations, the authority of each State 
is supreme. This being true, it will be readily understood 
that the people of the several States are chiefly dependent 


76 


SUPERIORITY OF 


upon their State governments and authorities for security of 
life, limb, property and reputation. In nearly all of the atfairs 
of daily life and business, they are governed and protected by 
the State laws, enacted by legislators chosen directly by them¬ 
selves. It is by virtue of the separate State organizations, and 
the sovereign rights reserved to the States, that the people are 
enabled to secure the inestimable blessings of local self-govern¬ 
ment and home rule.” 

In order to preserve these blessings, which are difficult to 
obtain through the agency of the general government, the 
Democratic party has always been the cliampion of State 
rights. The term “ State rights ” has been very inaccurately 
used, and very greatly abused, within the last thirty years. It 
has been specially applied to the unfounded claim of right on 
the part of a State to secede from the Union, and annul the au¬ 
thority of the federal government within its boundaries. Such 
right has been claimed by factions of citizens, at different 
times, in the North as well as in the South, as will more fully 
appear in a subsequent chapter which treats of Disunionists 
and Nullifiers ; but the alleged right of a State to secede from 
the Union was never a tenet in the creed of any one of the 
great political parties into which the people of the United 
States have been divided. Whoever asserts that the Dem¬ 
ocratic party ever favored any such right is simply a gross 
falsifier of the facts of history. State rights, as maintained 
by the Democratic party, never meant the right of a State to 
secede from the Union, nor to nullify any federal law, jior to 
obstruct the execution of any law enacted by the general gov¬ 
ernment. By its platforms and its policy, it has always main¬ 
tained an immovable stand against any such right. It has 
done more than all other parties to enlarge the dominion of 
the federal government, and to maintain its honor. 

Whilst Mr. Jefferson was exceedingly solicitous to preserve 
the rights of the several States, and to leave to the people the 
utmost latitude in the pursuit of their affairs, without arrogant 
or burdensome interference from the government, he by no 


DEMOCRATIC AD3IINISTRATI0N. 


77 


means, and in no way, depreciated the benefits, the dignity, and 
the proper authority of the federal government. With the 
single exception of the acquisition of Alaska, he and his party 
did all that has ever been done to increase the geographical 
boundaries over which the federal government exercises its 
dominion. No man has been more resolute than Jefferson, and 
no party more patriotic than the Democracy, in maintaining the 
dignity and authority of the government of the United States ; 
but, in doing so, they have always carefully abstained from any 
sort of trespass upon the authority and dignity of the several 
States, and have never employed the federal authority for the 
oppression of the people or the promotion of favored classes. 

The ancient Federalists and modern Kepublicans, on the 
other hand, have always endeavored to magnify the federal 
government at the expense of the States and of the people. 
They insist that the United States is not a confederation of 
independent sovereign States, but a Nation, “with a big N,” 
as they express it, and that the States are mere dependencies 
of the government which they created. The whole drift of 
Federalist-Republican policy has been in the channel of en¬ 
croachment on State sovereignty, and, consequently, upon 
republican government and home rule. Centralization has 
been the key-note of their policy, and centralization always 
inures to the benefit of classes to the detriment of the masses. 
It is more advantageous to any community to have ten estab¬ 
lishments doing a business of one million each, than to have 
one establishment doing a business of ten millions. The 
greatest good to the greatest number is promoted by division 
and diversity of trade, and business, and labor. The consolida¬ 
tion of capital and business in the hands of great firms, and 
corporations, and trusts is the stupendous curse of the present 
age; and it is the natural and inevitable outgrowth of the 
policy of centralization, w^hicli the Democratic party has 
always opposed and which the Federalists and Republicans 
have always encouraged. 

State governments are nearer to the people, and more under 


78 


SUPERIORITY OF 


the control of local communities, than the federal government 
can possibly be ; and they are consequently more republican 
and less monarchical. It is much easier for the people of any 
particular State to establish, abolish, or amend, alter or modify, 
a law, or regulation, or institution, within their own State, than 
to accomplish the same thing within thirty-seven other States 
having diversified interests. The agency of the State govern¬ 
ment is at the doors of the peoi^le within its boundaries, its 
governmental machinery is under the control of officers chosen 
by and responsible to that people, and it can be brought into 
speedy and efficient use; whilst the agency of the federal 
government is more distant, more complicated, less speedy, 
more expensive, and controlled by officers whose choice de¬ 
pends upon many widely separated and unharmonious com¬ 
munities, most of whom are exempt from any direct respon¬ 
sibility to the people. 

Federalism or Nationalism, if the latter word is preferred, 
is all right within proper limits, and when exercised for 
proper purposes. The Democratic party echoes back the 
thunder tones of its own great President Jackson that the 
Union of the States must and shall be preserved ; but it must 
be preserved as a Union of States, not as a great central 
absorber of power, insidiously and gradually melting thirty- 
eight sovereign States into one unwieldy unit, distant from 
the people, indifferent to the interests of localities, unsuited 
by structure to the prompt gratification of local desires, and 
iu no way as well adapted as the separate State governments 
for the protection of the people in pursuit of their every day 
business and comfort. 

The Federalist-Republican theory, constantly cropping out 
in the debate on the Mills Bill for the revision of the tariff 
laws, and otherwise expressed, is to erect in every community 
an emblem of nationality in the form of a federal building or 
fortification, or substantial structure of some sort, so that the 
people shall have constantly before their eyes, wherever they 
go within our broad dominion, an evidence that they belong 


DE3I0CRATIG ADMINISTRATION. 


79 


to a powerful central national government. This monstrous 
idea is formulated in the following extract from an article 
prepared by Governor Foraker, of Ohio, and published in 
the Forum for August, 1887 : 

It would, at least, not be a bad investment to put a 
United States building in every city of the land having a 
population of twenty thousand, if for no other reason than to 
have continually before the people a visible testimonial to the 
existence of the national government.’’ 

The sentiment instilled into the people by such wastefully 
extravagant policy is not patriotism nor sound republicanism. 
Patriotism, like religion, is a tenant of the human heart, and 
grand government buildings are not promoters of true patri¬ 
otism, any more than imposing church edifices, with extrava¬ 
gant trappings of worldly grandeur, are promoters of true reli¬ 
gion. When the citizen enters a public building erected under 
State authority, he finds officials who owe their positions to 
him and the people of his community, and who are account¬ 
able to that people, and who govern themselves in their inter¬ 
course with him as accountable agents of that community; 
when he enters a government building, he finds it occupied 
by officers who are not directly indebted to the people of the 
* community, appointees of a superior who owes his position to 
another and distant superior, Barnacles who practice ^Miow 
not to do” what the citizen desires to have done, subservient 
creatures of some party boss who obtained their positions, 
mere spokes in the wheels of the party machine. If the extra¬ 
vagant government structures take on the form of fortifica¬ 
tions, they require soldiers to man them, and necessitate 
an increase in the regular army, always an expensive and 
demoralizing institution, and unnecessary in a country where 
volunteers have always proved to be the best of soldiers. 

Aside from the greater convenience and availability of the 
State governments, they are far less burdensome than the 
federal government. In a speech made by Senator Colquitt, 
on March 12th, 1888, in the United States Senate, the fol¬ 
lowing extract is quoted from a work entitled ‘‘Federal 


80 


SUPERIORITY OF 


Taxation,” by Samuel Barnett, Esq., of Washington, Ga., 
to wit: 

‘‘By the census of 1880 the population of the United 
States" was, in round numbers, 50,000,000, composed of about 
10,000,000 families. 

“The aggregate cost of all the State and Territorial govern¬ 
ments was 152,000,000. So the State governments cost about 
$1 a head (11.04), or 15.20 per family. 

“The county governments cost not quite $70,000,000— 
being about $1.40 per head, or $7 per family. 

“ Observe, now, the comparative cost of the federal govern¬ 
ment. Its receipts are not numbered in tens of millions but 
in hundreds, being about $400,000,000 per annum—that is, 
about $8 per head or $40 per family. 

“Thus the federal government costs over three times as 
much as all the State and county and Territorial governments 
put together. It costs nearly eight times as much as the ag¬ 
gregate of all the State and Territorial governments combined. 

“ To make good our assertion as to comparative taxes in 
Missouri: 

“ The population of Missouri is 2,168,380, and its federal 
taxes, averaging nearly $8 per head, about $17,000,000. 

“ The following table exhibits the State and Territorial 
taxes of the continental region beyond the Mississippi Eiver : 


“ table oe state taxes. 

Minnesota. $726,000 

Iowa. 827,000 

Missouri. 2,125,000 

Arkansas. 715,000 

Louisiana. 1,771,000 

Texas. 2,198,000 

Nebraska. 355,000 

Kansas.. 883,000 

Colorado. 372,000 

Nevada. • 161,000 

Oregon.;. 464,000 

California... 3,215,000 


Twelve States....".$13,803,000 

Eight Territories.....:.. 620,000 


Twenty States and Territories.......... .$14,423,000 


Federal tax of Missouri.$17,000,000 






















B EMOCRA TIC ADMINISTRA TION. 


81 


Excess of the federal tax of Missouri over the State and 
Territorial taxes of the whole trans-Mississippi, $2,577,000. 

“How is it on this side of the Mississippi River? There 
are twenty-six States and the District of Columbia. The 
federal tax of New York exceeds the combined State taxes of 
them all. The federal tax of New York, with 5,000,000 
people, is about $40,000,000. The aggregate State taxes (in¬ 
cluding the District of Columbia) on this side of the river 
are about $37,600,000. This would leave New York a margin 
of profit of $2,400,000. 

“ Therefore the two States of New York and Missouri could 
make a profitable trade with the United States on these terms: 
Remit our federal taxes and we will run all the State and 
territorial governments of the Union. They would realize 
nearly five millions of annual profits by the bargain.” 

Such facts ought to have the effect of opening the eyes of 
all who are not hopelessly blind. 

Let no man be deluded with the assertion that nobody has 
any intention of destroying or impairing the sovereignty 
of the States. The author has frequently heard intelligent 
and prominent men of his own community advocate the 
total obliteration of State lines. It is a common complaint 
amongst merchants and manufacturers, who have customers 
in many different States, that there is ari inconvenient diver¬ 
sity in the law^s of the several States, relating to collections, 
attachments, stays of execution, exemptions, liens, and the 
like; and they selfishly argue that it would be a great improve¬ 
ment to have the federal government enact uniform laws to 
operate throughout all the States. Many able lawyers advo¬ 
cate the enlargement of the jurisdiction of the federal courts, 
and the establishment of additional courts. Whenever there 
is an outbreak amongst discontented laborers, provoked by the 
grinding exactions of corporate employers, as in the case of 
the railroad riot at Pittsburgh, in 1877, a dangerous senti¬ 
ment is aroused in favor of enlarging the regular army and 
extending the powers of the general government. There is 
no end of captivating arguments in favor of nationalizing the 
United States; but, when they are analyzed,, the chief ingre- 
C 


82 


SUPERIORITY OF 


dient in every one of them will be found to be a characteristic 
of monarchy. Every argument in favor of federal aggrandize¬ 
ment is against the liberty, the prosperity, and the equality of 
the people ; it is against home rule and local self-government; 
it is in favor of classes and against the masses ; it is un-demo-* 
cratic and un-republican ; it is in favor of putting deadly 
weapons in the hands of capitalists, corporations, monopolists 
and government favorites, for the robbery, humiliation, and 
practical enslavement of the toiling masses, who do the work 
in time of peace and the fighting in time of war. 

State rights, like all the tenets of the Democratic creed, 
are based upon a confidence in the capacity of the people for 
self-government. If the foundation of the Democratic creed 
is wrong, if the people are incapable of governing themselves, 
if a strong central government is required to coerce the people 
into obedience, then it is sheer hypocrisy to make pretense of 
republicanism. So long as the people claim the right and 
capacity to govern themselves, so long as the farmer and me¬ 
chanic and laborer claim to be the equals of bond-holders and 
monopolists, so long must they jealously guard the rights of 
the States against the continuous and insidious encroachments 
of the federal government, with its extravagance, its delays, 
and its hopeless distance from the people. Every enlargement 
of federal authority is a direct blow at the best interests of the 
people. Take the federal courts. In a vast majority of cases, 
the decision of the circuit or district judge is practically final, 
which gives rise to the arrogance and indifference begotten of 
uncontrolled power. If an appeal is allowable, and the wronged 
party is able to pursue it, a delay of three to five years con¬ 
fronts him ; whilst the expense of litigation in the courts of 
the United States greatly exceeds that of the State courts. 
True policy would restrict, rather than enlarge, the jurisdic¬ 
tion of the federal courts; and their exclusive jurisdiction 
should be confined within narrow and carefully defined limits. 
AVe have far too many federal offices filled by appointment, 
instead of by popular vote. If the people were entrusted with 


DEMOCRATIC AD3IimSTRATI0N, 


83 


the choice of postmasters, and the bulk of the federal officers 
who are scattered about the country, we would have a better 
civil service, besides taking one of the most annoying and cor¬ 
rupting agencies out of politics, and leaving congressmen time 
to devote to legislative duties which is occupied in distribut¬ 
ing the patronage. 

This dangerous principle of aggressive nationality was one 
of the monarchical creeds of the Federalists which they de¬ 
signedly created an opportunity to put into practical opera¬ 
tion very early in the history of the government. The excise 
tax was odious to British subjects, as well in the mother coun¬ 
try as in the colonies ; and, when Hamilton insisted upon the 
excise tax on whiskey, he realized that resistance to its collec¬ 
tion was inevkable.” He pressed the matter, knowing that 
it would provoke insurrection, for the purpose of creating an 
opportunity to exhibit the national authority of coercion be¬ 
fore parties had formed in the States, and while the executive, 
who was to enforce it, had a tremendous hold on the hearts of 
the people. This appalling design of Hamilton clearly appears 
from his letter to Washington, partly quoted in an article on 
the ^‘Whiskey Insurrection,” prepared by Prof. Alexander 
Johnston, and j^ublished in the third volume of ‘‘ Lalor’s Cyclo¬ 
paedia,” from which the following extract is taken : 

^^If we take into account the expense of suppressing the in¬ 
evitable insurrection it provoked, the excise cost as much for 
collection as it produced, and the sides of its account were 
fairly balanced. Hamilton had prescience enough to forecast 
this immediate result, and yet he felt that great gain would 
come from the passage of the law. His reason, as given in the 
letter to Washington cited below, was, that it was necessary 
to assert at once the power of the federal government to lay 
excises, which the people were accustomed to look upon as a 
State prerogative, and that thing of the kind could not be 
introduced with a greater prospect of easy success than at a 
period when the government enjoyed the advantage of first im¬ 
pressions ; when State factions to resist its authority were not 
yet matured ; and when so much aid was to be derived from 
the popularity and firmness of the actual chief magistrate/” 


84 


SUPERIORITY OF 


The War of the Eebellion gave the Eepublican party ample 
opportunity to practically enforce the principle of nationalism, 
and they did not hesitate to override the constitution when¬ 
ever it seemed to interpose an obstacle in their way. 

The Democratic party has never denied the national or 
federal authority. President Jackson was firm in his deter¬ 
mination to exercise it against the Nullifiers of South Caro¬ 
lina ; but the Democrats have always favored the humane and 
republican policy of ameliorating the causes of disturbance, 
rather than creating provocations to insurrection in order to 
enable the general government to absorb some of the reserved 
rights of the States and of the people. These reserved rights 
of the States constitute the chief barrier, in our system of 
government, against the establishment of monarchical insti¬ 
tutions ; they are the great safeguards of the people, and they 
cannot be too carefully guarded against the insidious encroach¬ 
ments of an absorbing central government. 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


85 


CHAPTER VII. 

THE EXTINCTIOK OF FEDERALISM. —1809 TO 1825. 

The charge has been repeatedly and persistently made, by 
opponents of the Democratic party, that it is non-progressive, 
narrow and illiberal in its policy, and lacking in that degree 
of statesmanship essential to a capable understanding and 
broad comprehension of the wants and capacities of their great 
country. Sufficient has been said in preceding chapters to 
show conclusively, even from the testimony of opponents, 
that such charge is totally inapplicable to the statesmen who 
controlled its policy during the first eight years of its ad¬ 
ministration of the government. Greater foresight and wiser 
statesmanship have never been exhibited by any party, during 
any period of American history. Let us see to what extent 
and how long this historic party continued in the way of well 
doing. 

Eo attempt has been made heretofore in this work, nor 
shall any be made hereafter, to treat of all the measures of 
government, nor to present a detailed and connected history 
of political events. The purpose of the writer is rather to 
present the measures that gave rise to party controversy, and 
were of such character as to stimulate or to retard the pros¬ 
perity of the United States; and to exhibit the attitude of the 
Democratic party, and its opponents, towards those measures. 

When President Madison entered upon the discharge of the 
duties of Chief Executive, on March 4th, 1809, he found the 
affairs of the United States in a highly satisfactory condition, 
except in so far as they were affected by the terrific foreign 
wars over which he and his predecessor had no control. The 
eight per cent, loan contracted during the administration of 


80 


SUPERIORITY OF 


President Adams, to raise and equip an army for political 
purposes, had been extinguished during the administration of 
Jefferson ; and, altogether, thirty-three millions five hundred 
and eighty thousand dollars of the principal of the funded 
debt had been paid, being all that could be paid within the 
limits of the law and the government contracts made by the 
Federalists, leaving a surplus in the treasury. 

The discontent in New England had been allayed by the 
modification of the embargo measure; but the attitude of 
Great Britain was highly unsatisfactory to the American 
people, and the world had yet to be taught the great lesson 
that the American fiag is ample protection to all who sail 
under it over the high seas. President Madison was disposed 
to continue the policy pursued by his predecessor towards 
France and England ; but neither of those warring powers 
seemed inclined to be first to withdraw their respective 
decrees and orders, which proved so disastrous to American 
commerce. The course of the British government in repudiat¬ 
ing the pacific action of Mr. Erskine, its minister; the offen¬ 
sive conduct and diplomatic correspondence of Mr. Jackson, 
who succeeded Mr. Erskine; the positive refusal of the govern¬ 
ment to moderate its claim of right to search American vessels 
and impress alleged deserters into the service of the British 
navy; and, finally, the disclosures made by John Henry, who 
represented himself as a secret agent of the British govern¬ 
ment, employed in negotiations with disaffected citizens of 
the New England States, for the purpose of resisting the laws 
of the United States, and, with British aid, separating New 
England from the Union; together with an apparent indis¬ 
position to respect the rights of the Americans as a neutral 
power, finally led congress to pass an act declaring war, which 
the President approved June 18th, 1812. 

This measure was bitterly and unpatriotically opposed by 
the Federalists. The members of congress belonging to that 
party published an address to their constituents strongly 
condemning the war policy of the administration. They 


DEMOCRA TIC ADMINISTRA TION, 


87 


denounced the invasion of Canada as cruel, wanton, sense¬ 
less and wicked attack the governors of Massachusetts and 
Connecticut refused to furnish their quotas of troops ; the 
Federalist Legislature of Massachusetts declared the whole 
>var ^‘impolitic and unjust,” and refused votes of thanks for 
the splendid victories that crowned the early efforts of the 
American navy ; the newly elected Federalist governor of 
Vermont recalled a brigade of militia which his Democratic 
predecessor had ordered out for garrison duty, and when it 
was proposed in congress to take action against the unpa¬ 
triotic governor, a counter proposition was promptly made 
in the Massachusetts Senate to aid Vermont with the whole 
pow'er of the State; signals were given to British war ships by 
means of blue lights thrown up by Federalist traitors along 
the shore, and Prof. Johnston says : New England, in short, 
presented a united Federalist front of opposition to the war.” 
The British government recognized the services of its Fed¬ 
eralist allies by excepting Rliode Island, Massachusetts and 
New Hampshire from the blockade which, on March 20th, 
1813, it declared along the whole Atlantic coast. The treason¬ 
able opposition of the Federalists culminated in the Hartford 
Convention, of which an account will be found in a subsequent 
chapter which treats of Disunionists and Nullifiers: and 
where further evidence is found of the spirit of opposition ex¬ 
hibited by the Federalists to this great Democratic war, which 
Mr. Blaine says has been well named ^‘The Second War of 
Independence.” The splendid achievements of the American 
navy, and the glorious exploits of the soldiers on land, cul¬ 
minating in the brilliant victory of Gen. Jackson, at New 
Orleans, compelled the respect of the United States in every 
land, and on every sea. The anthor of the Statesman’s Man¬ 
ual,” whose praise of anything Democratic is given with mani¬ 
fest reluctance, writing in 1847, says : ^^The national charac¬ 
ter, therefore, rose to an eminence in the estimation of for¬ 
eigners which has ever since been maintained.” 

Having extorted an honorable peace with Great Britain, the 


88 


SUPERIORITY OF 


next move of this Democratic administration was to punish 
the Algerines for,their depredations upon American commerce 
in the Mediterranean. By a treaty made by the Federalists 
in 1795, an annual tribute of twenty-three thousand dollars 
had been paid by the United States to the Algerines as a pro¬ 
tection to American merchant vessels trading at Mediterranean 
ports ; but that piratical people, in disregard of their treaty, 
took advantage of our war with England to plunder American 
vessels and sell their crews into bondage. A squadron of nine 
vessels of the American navy under Commodore Decatur, after 
capturing the admiral of the Algerine fleet and two frigates, 
appeared before Algiers and extorted an honorable treaty, by 
the terms of which the old Federalist tribute was discontin¬ 
ued, all American captives were released without ransom, and 
compensation was made for vessels and property that had been 
taken. 

The administration of the government in accordance with 
the policy of the Democratic party had become so satisfactory 
that, in 1816, James Monroe, the Democratic candidate for 
President, received 183 electoral votes to 34 for Rufus King, 
the Federalist candidate. 

In the Statesman’s Manual ” it is said : 

The administration of President Madison terminated nn 
the 3d of March, 1817, and he surrendered the affairs of the 
government into the hands of his friend and associate, Mr. 
Monroe, with the satisfaction of having seen the nation pass 
honorably through the trying scenes of a portion of the time 
while he had been at the head of the republic ; and that he 
could now retire from the cares of office at a time of general 
peaee and prosperity, with the prospect for his country of a 
bright and glorious career in her destiny as a great and inde¬ 
pendent nation.” 

In the same volume, page 544, it is said : 

The Federal party was almost entirely prostrated soon 
after the peace of 1815, and continued their organization in 
but few of the States, after a feeble struggle of three or four 
years.” 


BEMOGRATIG ADMINISTRATION. 


89 


Again, page 546 : 

The first session of the Fifteenth Congress commenced on 
the 1st of December, 1817, and continued until the 20th of 
April, 1818. The Democratic majority in both senate and 
house was overwhelming, the number of Federalists in this 
congress being few indeed ; and, after this period, it maybe re¬ 
marked that former party lines became entirely extinct in the 
national legislature. Mr. Clay was re-elected speaker of the 
house of representatives by a vote nearly unanimous. . . . 
The President’s message involved many subjects of great in¬ 
terest to the nation, many of which were taken up and acted 
upon by congress.” 

IMonroe’s administration began on March 4, 1817, and his 
two terms are known in iVmerican political history as the ‘‘Era 
of Grood Feeling.” Party lines had become so completely 
obliterated that, at the Presidential election of 1820, every 
Presidential elector chosen in every State of the Union was a 
Democrat, and all but one of them cast their ballots for the 
re-election of President Monroe. It was a period of unob¬ 
structed Democratic supremacy, a period of national pros¬ 
perity, and of great individual contentment. To the everlasting 
credit of the Democratic party, let it be proclaimed to the 
people of this generation, and to generations yet to come, that 
during the long period, while the Democratic party was 
absolutely without the shadow of a party rival to hold it in 
check, the government was administered, without the least 
interruption, in the interests of the whole country, and the 
entire people, with absolute freedom from a single robbing 
raid upon the public treasury. No party ever enjoyed such 
abundant opportunities to enrich its partisans and favorites, 
or to use the absolute control of the government for individ¬ 
ual aggrandizement and the promotion of purely selfish and 
partisan interests; and yet the author of the “Statesman’s 
Manual ” says : 

“ The administration of Mr. Monroe, which closed on the 
3d of March, 1825, was eminently prosperous and advantageous 


90 


SUPERIORITY OF 


to the nation. At no period in onr history has party spirit 
been so much subdued, and the attention of the national legis¬ 
lature more exclusively devoted to objects of public benefit.” 

Let any unbiased citizen compare this period of absolute 
Democratic supremacy with the period of complete Federalist 
control, during the administration of John Adams, or the 
period of full Eepublican control, from the close of the war 
until near the ending of President Grant’s administration. 

We have seen in a former chapter to what extent the 
Federalists abused their power during the Adams adminis¬ 
tration, when they had unrestricted control of the government, 
and when everything was managed in the interests of the 
favored few, regardless of the rights of the many. How was 
it during the period of unrestricted Republican dominion ? 
Let one of the most eloquent and eminent members of that 
party answer. In his eulogy upon Roscoe Conkling, delivered 
at Albany, May 9, 1888, Col. Robert J. Ingersoll said: 

He was in congress during the years of vast expenditure, 
of war and waste—when the credit of the nation was loaned 
to individuals—when claims were thick as leaves in June, 
when the amendment of a statute, the change of a single word, 
meant millions, and when empires were given to corporations.” 

These were the years of unrestricted Republican dominion, 
when that party had majorities in both houses of congress, 
and full power in every department of the government. That 
was the period when robbing rings flourished; when jobbery 
was the regular order of the day ; when bold public thievery 
went unpunished ; when convicted bribers received executive 
pardons ; when gigantic frauds and reeking corruption stalked 
offensively in public places with scarcely a pretense of dis¬ 
guise. Such was the character of the public service when the 
Republicans had unrestricted power, and Col. Ingersoll rightly 
regards that great man as worthy of jast praise, who came 
through a period of unexampled corruption without his hand 
ever being touched by any bribe. 

If one man deserves praise for coming through a period of 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


91 


absolute party dominion without yieldiug to the corrupting 
influences of power, what praise is not justly due to a party 
that came through a longer period of more absolute power 
with perfect integrity and good faith to the people it might 
have plundered without check ? 

During all that long period oi prosperity and happiness, 
when the Democratic party was free from even the semblance 
of organized opposition, when the Democrats had absolute 
power to adopt any measure, let it be written down to their 
everlasting honor, no sort of encroachment upon the rights of 
the States, or the people was ever attempted, corruption in the 
public service was unknown, legislative jobbery was never 
even proposed, favored classes had no existence, and the entire 
affairs of the government were honestly managed with an eye 
single to the public benefit. The same cannot be truthfully 
said of any period of absolute dominion of any other party. 


92 


SUPERIORITY OF 


CHAPTER VIII. 

THE PllESIDEIS^TIAL CAMPAIGN OF 1824. 

This singular campaign deserves special consideration, be¬ 
cause it is the only Presidential campaign in which all of the 
ojiposing candidates were members of the same political party; 
and because it marks the beginning of the division of the old 
Jeffersonian party into two great rival branches, and led to 
the choice of Presidential electors by the direct votes of the 
people in all of the States except South Carolina. It was the 
last campaign in which any attempt was made to nominate a 
Presidential candidate by a congressional caucus. It led to 
a more direct popular control of public affairs, which ripened 
in the course of a few years into the plan of nominating 
candidates by conventions of delegates specially selected for 
that particular purpose. 

The four candidates for the office of President, in the 
campaign of 1824, were Andrew Jackson, John Quincy 
Adams, William H. Crawford, and Henry Clay, all of whom 
were then prominent and able members of the Democratic 
party. 

Andrew Jackson began political life as a delegate to the 
Tennessee convention which met at Knoxville, in 1796, to 
frame a constitution preparatory to the admission of that 
Territory into the Union as a State. He was then in the 
twenty-ninth year of his age, “and took an active part in the 
formation of the constitution.’’ He w'as chosen as the first 
representative of the new State in the congress, and took his 
seat in the House in December, 1796. The following year, 
he was elected to the Senate of the United States, and, after 
serving a single session, he resigned. In congress, he acted 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION, 


93 


from the outset with the anti-Federalists; and he was an 
ardent supporter of Jefferson in the great campaign of 1800. 
Soon after his resignation as senator he was appointed judge 
of the supreme court of his State, and, after an acceptable 
service of six years on the bench, he resigned office to become 
a farmer and stock-breeder. He afterwards negotiated some 
important treaties with the Indians, and became a famous 
military hero in ^‘The Second War of Independence.” In 
1821, President Monroe appointed him Governor of Florida, 
which Territory had been secured by the treaty from Spain 
in 1819. He soon resigned this office, and retired to his 
plantation. President Monroe offered him the appointment 
of Minister to Mexico, which he declined. In 1823, he was 
again elected to the Senate of the United States, which office 
he held until October, 1825, when he resigned. In July, 1822, 
the Legislature of Tennessee nominated him as a candidate 
for the Presidency in 1824, and this nomination was repeated 
by assemblages of citizens in several States. 

John Quincy Adams was the eldest son of John Adams, 
second President of the United States. He became a warm 
personal friend of Mr. Jefferson early in life. Much of his early 
life was spent abroad, partly with his father in his numerous 
missions to various foreign courts, and partly as private secre¬ 
tary of the Kussian mission. When Jefferson was a member of 
Washington’s cabinet, he recommended John Quincy Adams 
to the President as a proper person to be introduced into the 
public service of the country. In 1794, President Washington 
appointed him Minister to the Netherlands, and he was subse¬ 
quently appointed Minister to Prussia, where he remained 
until 1801. The following, relating to him, is quoted from 

the ^^Statesman’s Manual,” Vol. L, i^age 5G7: 

/ 

^^It was fortunate that he was absent from the country 
during the period when domestic parties were organized and 
arrayed against each other. His situation secured him from 
the necessity of taking part in those political contentions, in 
which he must either have been placed in the painful position 


94 


SUPERIORITY OF 


of acting with the party opposed to his father, or he would 
have been obliged to encounter the natural imputation of 
being biased in support of him by filial attachment. From 
this alternative Mr. Adams was spared by his residence abroad 
during the whole period in which our domestic parties were 
acquiring their organization ; and he returned to his native 
land a stranger to local parties, and a friend to his country. . .. 

‘^In 1803, he was elected by the Legislature of Massachusetts, 
a senator of the United States. There was a Federal majority 
in that body, but Mr. Adams was not elected by a party vote. 
He was considered a moderate Federalist. . . . 

‘‘He supported the administration of Mr. Jefferson in every 
measure which his judgment approved. With the Demo¬ 
cratic majority in the Senate he voted for the embargo recom¬ 
mended by Mr. Jefferson, believing that the hostile decrees 
of France and England against American commerce called for 
retaliatory or restrictive measures. . . . His course was 
severely censured by his former political friends, the Federalists 
of Massachusetts, who considered his support of the embargo, 
and other measures of Mr. Jefferson’s administration, as an 
act of separation from the Federal party. His father had 
previously indicated similar views to those of his son, and 
finally became a zealous supporter of Democratic men and 
measures.” 

The Legislature of Massachusetts passed a series of resolu¬ 
tions censuring Senator Adams for his support of Jefferson’s 
administration, and he resigned the senatorship. Lalor’s 
Cyclopaedia contains an article on John Quincy Adams, writ¬ 
ten by Prof. Alexander Johnston, who says : 

“In 1803, he was chosen as a Federalist United States 
senator from Massachusetts. In 1808 his support of the 
embargo was censured by his State Legislature, and he at 
once resigned and went over to the opposite party, by which 
he was made Minister to Eussia and (in 1815) to Great 
Britain.” 

The same author, in his work entitled “American Politics,” 
at page 67, says : 

“John Quincy Adams, who had resigned the Massachu¬ 
setts senatorship because his support of the embargo had been 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


95 


disapproved by his State Legislature, informed the President 
that the embargo could no longer be enforced in New Eng¬ 
land ; that the Federalist leaders had made all arrangements 
to break off from federal relations with the rest of the Union 
unless the act was repealed, and that an agent from the Can¬ 
adas was then in New England to offer the assistance of the 
English government to the scheme.” 

Entertaining these views of the unpatriotic designs of the 
Federalists of his own section of the country, it was impossi¬ 
ble for a patriot and statesman of the stamp of Mr. Adams to 
have any party affiliation with the Federalists. It is certain 
that, if ever there was a time when he could be properly 
classed as even a moderate” Federalist, he had completely 
withdrawn from all political association with that party, and 
become an active and trusted supporter of President Jefferson 
and his political policy. 

In 1809, President Madison appointed Mr. Adams Minister 
to Russia, and he continued to represent our government at 
the court of Emperor Alexander, until he was jffaced at the 
head of the commission which negotiated the treaty of peace 
with Great Britain. In 1815, President Madison appointed 
him Minister to Great Britain, from which position he was 
called home, in March, 1817, to enter the cabinet of President 
Monroe as Secretary of State. Referring to his choice of Mr. 
Adams, Gen. Jackson Avrote to the President: I have no 
hesitation in saying you have made the best selection to fill 
the Department of State that could be made.” Mr. Adams 
remained in the Department of State during the eight years of 
President Monroe’s administration, and up until the time that 
he himself became the President. 

The political record of John Quincy Adams, prior to his 
elevation to the Presidency, has been stated somewhat folly 
for the 23urpose of showing how completely he was separated 
from the party Avhich honored his father with the Presidency 
in 1796. 

William II. Crawford was Secretary of the Treasury during 


96 


SUPERIORITY OF 


the whole of President Monroe’s administration. He repre¬ 
sented the State of Georgia in the Senate of the United States 
from 1807 to 1813 ; was Minister to France, under appoint¬ 
ment from President Madison, from 1813 to 1815 ; and Secre¬ 
tary of War during the remainder of Madison’s administration. 
In 1816, he was a formidable competitor of James Monroe for 
the Democratic nomination for the Presidency, having received 
54 votes in the congressional caucus to 65 votes for Mr. 
Monroe. In 1825, his friends called a caucus of the members 
of congress, but that method of nomination was opposed by a 
large majority of the members, and only the friends of Mr. 
Crawford attended the caucus. Such members as attended 
the meeting put him in nomination, and they insisted through¬ 
out the campaign that he was the regular nominee.” He 
was a man of superior intellectual ability, strictly honorable in 
his political course, and of great influence in his party. 

Henry Clay made his first appearance in congress as a 
senator from Kentucky in 1806, and served one session. He 
returned as senator in 1809 and served until 1811. When the 
Twelfth Congress met in November, 1811, he appeared as a 
member of the House of Representatives, and was chosen 
speaker by the large Democratic majority in that House. He 
was an ardent supporter of President Madison’s administra¬ 
tion, and one of the most active and efficient members in sup¬ 
porting the act declaring war with Great Britain. He was 
elected Speaker of the House six times by the Democratic 
party, and was employed in negotiating the treaty of peace as 
well as the convention of commerce with Great Britain. He 
was never at any time connected with tlie Federalist party, 
nor in sympathy with its monarchical policy. More than any 
other one man, he was the leader of the Democratic party in 
the war measures which the Federalists opposed in the manner 
stated in the last preceding chapter. 

The result of the election between the four rival Democratic 
candidates was 99 electoral votes for Jackson, 84 for Adams, 
41 for Crawford, and 37 for Clay. No one having received 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION, 


97 


the requisite majority, the choice of President deyolved upon 
the House of Kepresentatives, and, as the constitution limited 
the choice to the three highest candidates, Olay was dropped. 
His friends united with the supporters of Adams, and the 
latter was elected President. 

The outcome of the election by the House of Representatives 
gave rise to popular dissatisfaction and a great deal of personal 
bitterness amongst the rival candidates, and their respective 
friends. The masses, who always like to see fair play, gener¬ 
ally took the view that, as Jackson had received the highest 
number of electoral votes, he ought to have been elected by 
the House. This feeling in favor of Jackson was intensified 
by the fact that charges were freely made of a bargain between 
Adams and Clay, whereby Adams was to receive the support 
of Olay’s friends and Clay was to be made Secretary of State. 
The people had not then become accustomed to the policy of 
political trading that has been common within the last thirty 
years ; they expected and were accustomed to absolute purity 
and unselfish patriotism in their public officers ; and anything 
having the appearance of a scheme to further any one’s ambi¬ 
tion was extremely distasteful to the masses. There was no 
political principle involved in the choice of President, as all 
the candidates were members of the same party ; but much 
personal feeling was aroused, so much, indeed, that the friends 
of Crawford, who had been more hostile to Jackson before the 
election than to either Adams or Clay, were gradually led by 
the action of the House of Representatives, and the charge of 
a selfish coalition, to champion the cause of Jackson. When 
the new President came to make up his cabinet, his nomination 
of Clay as Secretary of State met with warm opposition in the 
Senate, and fourteen senators voted against his confirmation 
to twenty-seven in his favor. 

When the Nineteenth Congress met in December, 1825, it 
was questionable whether a majority of its members would 
sustain the new President. A large proportion of the mem¬ 
bers had been chosen before the Presidential election, and it 
7 


98 


SUPERIORITY OF 


was not known how they had been personally affected by the 
result. However, on the vote for Speaker, John W. Taylor, 
of New York, a friend of the administration, received 99 
votes against 94 for other candidates ; but it soon became 
apparent that the friends of Jackson, constantly increasing 
by accessions from Crawford’s former adherents, were deter¬ 
mined to make war on the President in both houses of con¬ 
gress. As early as October, 1825, and within eight months 
after the inauguration of Adams, the Legislature of Tennessee 
nominated Jackson for the Presidency in 1828, and the nom¬ 
inee forthwith resigned his seat in the United States Senate. 
The recommendations of President Adams in his first message 
were passed over to take upon the consideration of proposed 
amendments of the constitution, one of which was designed 
to prevent the choice of President by the House of Kepre- 
sentatives. The debates on these proposed amendments were 
prolonged and spirited, in which the alleged coalition be¬ 
tween the President and Mr. Olay, and their respective ad¬ 
herents, formed a prominent feature, and necessarily gave 
rise to bitter personal feeling, the natural result of which was 
to give something like the permanency of party organization 
to the two factions into which the Democratic party had now 
become divided. The friends of Mr. Clay in congress justi¬ 
fied his vote for Adams on the ground of his previously 
expressed opinion of General Jackson’s unfitness for the 
Presidency; and this gave rise to an implacable personal 
hatred between Clay and Jackson, which continued for many 
years and had a marked influence upon political affairs. 

Harmony was never restored between the two factions into 
which the Democratic party became divided as the result of 
the campaign of 1824. During the administration of John 
Quincy Adams, both factions retained and claimed the right 
to the old party name ; one faction being known as the ad¬ 
ministration wing ” and the other as the opposition,” or, 
as they were sometimes designated, ‘‘Jackson men.” The 
elections for members of the Twentieth Congress resulted 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


99 


faYorably to the ‘^opposition,” and Andrew Stevenson, of 
Virginia, was elected Speaker of the House over John W. 
Taylor, the administration candidate, by a vote of 104 to 94, 
with 7 scattering. The “ opposition ” secured a majority in 
the Senate in the Twentieth Congress. At the Presidential 
election, in 1828, John Quincy Adams and General Jackson 
were the opposing candidates, their respective supporters each 
claiming to be the genuine Democratic (or, as it was thereto¬ 
fore called Republican) party. All of the States, except South 
Carolina, had adopted the plan of choosing Presidential elec¬ 
tors by popular vote, instead of by the State Legislatures. It 
Avas an exciting campaign, during which numerous meetings 
were held in all parts of the Union, at which the merits and 
demerits of the rival candidates were freely discussed before 
the people ; and similar discussion was carried on in the press. 
The result was favorable to Jackson. He received 178 elec¬ 
toral votes to 83 for Adams. The popular vote was for 
Jackson, 647,231; and for Adams, 509,097; the entire vote 
being less than the vote polled in the State of New York at 
the Presidential election of 1884. Mr. Adams received one 
electoral vote less than had been cast for him in 1824, whilst 
General Jackson received one more than the combined votes 
of himself, Crawford and Clay, at the preceding election. 
John C. Calhoun was re-elected Vice-President. 


100 


SUPERIORITY OF 


CHAPTEE IX. 

DEMOCEATS AND WHIGS—JACKSON AND CLAY. 

The long-continued separation of the two branches into 
which the Democratic party gradually divided after the election 
of John Quincy Adams, was maintained by reason of the hos¬ 
tility of the two great rival leaders, Jackson and Clay, rather 
than by radical differences of policy. This bitter personal 
rivalry continued throughout the lifetime of Jackson. They 
were opposing candidates for the Presidency in 1832, the 
Adams wing of the old party having by that time adopted the 
name of the National-Eepublican party, while Jackson was 
jmt in nomination by the first national convention of the 
Democratic party, held at Baltimore, in March, 1832. Clay 
had been nominated in December, 1831, by a convention of 
his party, held in the same city. A party known as Anti- 
Mason had held a convention, in the same city, in September, 
1831, and had nominated William Wirt for the Presidency. 
Ever since the campaign of 1832, candidates for the Presi¬ 
dency have been placed in nomination by conventions of dele¬ 
gates chosen for the purpose, by the respective parties. The 
party rules and machinery for the selection of delegates, and 
the regulation of nominating conventions, have become much 
more systematic than they were in 1832. At this election, 
Jackson received two hundred and nineteen electoral votes. 
Clay forty-nine, Wirt seven, and John Eloyd, of Virginia, 
received the eleven votes of South Carolina, owing to the 
breach already existing between Jackson and Calhoun. Dur¬ 
ing the following year, the National Eepublicans, the Anti- 
Masons, and the Calhoun faction united in opposing Jack¬ 
son’s administration. The following is extracted from Prof. 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


101 


Alexander Johnston’s article on the “ Whig Party,” published 
in Laior’s Cyclopaedia, Vol. III., page 1102 : 

Too impatient to trust to time and argument for a natural 
increase of their national vote, and hardly willing to trust to 
a general system of purchase by internal improvements alone, 
the National-Republicans began, after the election of 1832, a 
general course of beating up for recruits, regardless of princi¬ 
ple, which was the bane of their party throughout its whole 
national existence. No delegate could come amiss to their 
conventions ; the original Adams Republican, the Nullifier of 
South Carolina, the Anti-Mason of New York or Pennsylvania, 
the State-Rights delegate from Georgia, and the general mass 
of the dissatisfied everywhere, could find a secure refuge in 
conventions which never asked awkward questions, which 
ventured but twice (in 1844 and 1852) to adopt a platform, 
and which ventured but once (in 1844) to nominate for the 
Presidency a candidate with any avowed political principles. 
However heterogeneous was the mass of dissatisfaction in 
1833-4, there was community of feeling on at least one point, 
dislike to the President.’^ 

This mongrel opposition to Jackson adopted the name of 
Whigs in 1834. The first national convention of the Whig 
party was held at Baltimore in 1836, and it nominated Wil¬ 
liam Henry Harrison for the Presidency. In the article above 
quoted from, at page 1103, Prof. Johnston says : 

^‘ Harrison’s politics were of a Democratic cast, but he sat¬ 
isfied the Whig requisite of opposition to the President, while 
he satisfied the Anti-Masonic element still better by declaring 
that * neither myself nor any member of my family have ever 
been members, of the Masonic order.’ ” 

No platform was adopted, the one common bond amongst 
them being personal hostility to Jackson and factional opposi¬ 
tion to his administration. The Democratic party, at its 
national convention held in Baltimore, nominated Martin 
Van Buren, and ho was elected as Jackson’s successor. 

In December, 1839, the Whig National Convention met at 
Harrisburg, Pa., and after resorting to ^Glesperate expedi¬ 
ents,” as Prof. Johnston states, '‘in the effort to dragoon the 


102 


SUPERIORITY OF 


convention into nominating Harrison/’ he was eventually put 
in nomination for the Presidency, and John Tyler, a former 
Nullifier, was nominated as the candidate for Vice-President. 
No platform was adopted. Prof. Johnston, in the article 
already quoted from above, says : 

Log cabins and hard cider, supposed to be typical of Har¬ 
rison’s early life, were made leading political instruments ; 
singing was carried to an extent hitherto unknown ; mass 
meetings were measured by the acre, and processions by the 
league; and in November ‘ Tippecanoe and Tyler, too,’ re¬ 
ceived two hundred and thirty-four electoral votes to sixty for 
their opponents, and were elected.” 

Within one month after his inauguration President Harri¬ 
son died, and Tyler became President. Olay, who was the 
real leader of the Whig party, very soon made war upon 
Tyler’s administration, which soon fell under the practical 
control of the Democratic party. 

The campaign of 1844 was scarcely less exciting than the 
^‘hurrah campaign” which gave the Whigs a brief victory in 
1840. Keferring to it. Prof. Johnston says : 

Their convention met at Baltimore, May 1, 1844, the first 
and last really representative convention of the party. For 
the Presidency, Clay was nominated by acclamation. For the 
first time the party produced a platform, a model in its way, 
as follows : ^ That these (Whig) principles may be summed up 
as comprising a well-regulated national currency ; a tariff for 
revenue to defray the necessary expenses of the government, 
and discriminating with special reference to the protection of 
the domestic labor of the country; the distribution of the pro¬ 
ceeds from the sale of the public lands ; a single term for the 
Presidency ; a reform of executive usurpations ; and generally 
such an administration of the affairs of the country as shall 
impart to every branch of the public service the greatest prac¬ 
ticable efficiency, controlled by a well-regulated and wise 
economy.”’ 

As the Whig party formulated but one other platform of 
principles, being that adopted at its national convention of 


DE3I0CRATIG ADMINISTRATION. 


103 


1852, its substance will be given in this connection, as set out 
in Prof. Johnston^s article: 

The platform was in eight resolutions : 1. Delining the 
federal government’s powers as limited to those ‘^expressly 
granted by the constitution.” 2. Advocating the maintenance 
of both State and federal governments. 3. ‘Expressing the 
party’s sympathy with struggling freedom everywhere.” 4. 
Calling on the people to obey the constitution and the laws 

as they wmuld retain their self-respect.” ^^5. Government 
should be conducted on principles of the strictest economy; 
and revenue sufficient for the expenses thereof ought to be 
derived mainly from a duty on imports, and not from direct 
taxes; and in laying such duties sound policy requires a 
just discrimination, and, when practicable, by specific duties, 
whereby suitable encouragement may be afforded to American 
industry, equally to all classes and to all portions of the coun¬ 
try. 6. The constitution vests in congress the power to open 
and repair harbors, and remove obstructions from navigable 
rivers, whenever such improvements are necessary for the com¬ 
mon defense, and for the protection and facility of commerce 
with foreign nations or among the States, said improvements 
being in every instance national and general in their charac¬ 
ter.” 7. Urging respect to the authority” of the State as 
well as of the federal government. 8. Approving the series 
of acts of the 32d Congress, the act known as the fugitive 
slave law included, as a settlement in principle and substance 
of the dangerous and exciting questions which they embrace,” 
and deprecating ^^all further agitation of the question thus 
settled.” 

These declarations of principles are given thus fully, so that 
any intelligent reader may see how narrow were the boundaries 
of separation between the principles of the Whigs and the 
Democrats. With few changes, and none of vital importance, 
either one of these two Whig platforms might be consistently 
adopted by a Democratic convention, as its declaration of 
principles upon all of the questions not since eliminated from 


104 


SUPERIORITY OF 


politics. The monarchical principles, policies and tendencies 
of the old Federalist party, and of the modern Eepublican 
party, had no place in the creed or practices of the Whigs. 
The vigorous and often bitter struggles between the Democrats 
and Whigs were inspired to a very large extent by the per¬ 
sonal hostility that existed between the two great party leaders, 
Jackson and Olay. Upon this subject the following quota¬ 
tion is taken from Blaine's Book, Vol. I., pages 38, 39, where 
an account is given of the campaign of 1844, when Clay and 
Polk were the rival candidates : 

All the enmities and exasperations which began in the 
memorable contest for the Presidency when John Quincy 
Adams was chosen, and had grown into groat proportions 
during the long intervening period, were fought out on the 
angry field of 1844. Mr. Polk, a moderate and amiable man, 
did not represent the acrimonious character of the controversy. 
He stood only as the passive representative of its principles. 
Behind him Avas Jackson, aged and infirm in body, but strong 
in mind, and unbroken in spirit. ... It Avas Jackson’s final 
triumph over Olay. The iron-nerved old hero died in seven 
months after this crowning gratification of his life. 

‘^For twenty years these two great, brave men headed the 
opposing political forces of the IJnion. Whoever might be 
candidates, they were the actual leaders. . . . There Avas 
not in the whole country, during the long period of their 
rivalry, a single citizen of intelligence who was indifferent 
to Clay or to Jackson. . . . Members for twenty years of 
the same party, they differed slightly, if at all, in political 
principles when the contest began ; but Jackson enjoyed the 
prestige of a more lineal heirship to the creed of Jefferson, 
Madison and Monroe ; while Clay, by his imprudence in 
becoming Secretary of State, incurred not only the odium of 
the ‘ bargain and sale,’ but a share of the general unpopularity 
wdiich at that time attached to the name of Adams. It is not, 
in retrospect, difficult to measure the advantages which Jack- 
son possessed in the long contest, and to see clearly the reasons 
of his final triumph over the boldest of leaders, the noblest of 
foes. Still less is it difficult to see hoiu largely the personality 
of the two men entered into the struggle^ and how in the end 
the effect upon the policies and prosperity of the country loould 
have heen 7iearly the same had the winner and loser exchanged 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION, 


105 


'places. In each of them patriotism was a passion. There 
never was a moment in their prolonged enmity and their 
rancorous contests when a real danger to the country would 
not have united them as heartily as in 1812, when Clay in the 
House and Jackson on the field co-operated in defending the 
national honor against the aggressions of Great Britain.'*’ 

He might with propriety have added : and when the Feder¬ 
alists of New England were opposing the war, and treating 
with agents of the enemy for a dissolution of the Union. Mr. 
Blaine adds : 

The election of Mr. Polk was an unquestionable verdict 
from the people in favor of the annexation of Texas. Mr. 
Clay and Mr. Van Buren had been able to defeat the treaty 
negotiated by Mr. Calhoun ; but the popular vote overruled 
them, and pronounced in favor of the Democratic position 
after full and fair hearing.” 

The annexation of Texas necessarily involved a war with 
Mexico, and it was strongly opposed by many of tlie Whigs, 
particularly by that portion of the party resident in the North¬ 
ern States. Slavery was then coming to the front as a politi¬ 
cal question, and the Northern Whigs regarded the annexation 
of Texas as the acquisition of additional territory to be divided 
up into slave States. Texas is large enough for an empire, its 
geographical extent being nearly six times as large as the 
State of Pennsylvania. Its annexation was strictly a Dem¬ 
ocratic measure, and that party assumed the responsibility of 
a war with Mexico. In reference to the wisdom of its policy, 
the following conclusion is quoted from Blaine’s Book, page 
40: 

‘^The lapse of forty years and the important events of 
intervening history give the opportunity for impartial judg¬ 
ment concerning the policy of acquiring Texas. We were not 
guiltless towards Mexico in originally permitting, if not en¬ 
couraging our citizens, to join in the revolt of one of the States 
of that Kepublic. But Texas had passed definitely and finally 
beyond the control of Mexico, and the practical issue was, 
whether we should incorporate her in the Union or leave her 


106 


SUPERIORITY OF 


to drift in uncertain currents—possibly to form European 
alliances which we should afterwards be compelled, in self-de¬ 
fense, to destroy. An astute statesman of that period sum¬ 
med np the whole case when he declared that it was wiser 
policy to annex Texas, and accept the issue of immediate war 
with Mexico, than to leave Texas in nominal independence, 
to involve us probably in ultimate war with England. ITie 
entire history of subsequent events has vindicated the toisdom, 
the courage, and the statesmanship with which the Democratic 
party dealt ivith this question in 1844.*’ 

Such is the testimony of the great leader, who, to-day, 
stands towards the masses of the Eepublican party in very 
much the same attitude that he himself describes Clay as 
standing towards the Whig party ; and yet little partisan 
Tomtits of his party attempt to teach the people, through 
newspapers, and on the stump, and by magazine articles, that 
there are not now and never were any statesmen in the Demo¬ 
cratic party. 

The annexation of Texas resulted, as was expected, in a 
war with Mexico, which resulted in the acquisition of an im¬ 
mense territory, including California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, 
New Mexico, and a large portion of Colorado.' 

The Whig party made its last unsuccessful national cam¬ 
paign in 1852. In its origin, as has been shown, it was an off¬ 
shoot of the Democratic party, growing out of the dissensions 
produced in that party by the campaign of 1824. It was 
always a constitutional party, always firm in maintaining the 
rights of the States, always practically free from the mon¬ 
archical tendencies and practices of the Federalists, and so 
nearly in harmony with the Democrats in Jefferson’s ideas of 
the essential principles of republican government, that its 
members had no great political gulf to cross to get into the 
Democratic part. 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


107 


CHAPTEE X. 

KATIVE AMEKICANISM IK POLITICS. 

The Hon. Thomas V. Cooper, Chairman of the Kepubli- 
can State Committee of Pennsylvania, in his work entitled 
‘^American Politics,’’ Book I., page 54, gives the following 
account of the earlier efforts to organize a Native American 
party, to wit: 

‘‘The first political parties in the United States, from the 
establishment of the federal government and for many years 
afterwards, were denominated Federalists and Democrats, or 
Democratic Eepuhlicans. The former was an anti-alien party. 
The latter was made up to a large extent of naturalized for¬ 
eigners ; refugees from England, Ireland and Scotland, driven 
from home for hostility to the government or for attach¬ 
ment to France. Naturally, aliens sought alliance with the 
Democratic party, which favored the war against Great 
Britain. The early party contests were based on the nat¬ 
uralization laws, the first of which, approved March 26th, 
1790, required only two years’ residence in this country ; a 
few years afterwards the time was extended to five years; and, 
in 1798, the Federalists, taking advantage of the war fever 
against France, and then being in power, extended the time 
to fourteen years. Jefferson’s election and Democratic victory 
of 1800, brought the period back to five years in 1802, and 
reinforced the Democratic party. The city of New York, 
especially, from time to time became filled with foreigners, 
thus naturalized; brought into the Democratic ranks; and 
crowded out native Federalists from control of the city gov¬ 
ernment, and to meet this condition of affairs, the first 
attempt at a Native American organization was made. Be¬ 
ginning in 1835 ; ending in failure' in the election of Mayor 
in 1837; it was revived in April, 1844, when the Native 
American organization carried New York City for its May¬ 
oralty candidate by a ^ood majority. The success of the 
movement there caused it to spread to New Jersey and Penn- 


108 


SUPERIORITY OF 


sylvania. In Philadelphia it was desperately opposed by the 
Democratic Irish and Koman Catholic element, and so furi¬ 
ously that it resulted in riots, in which two Romish churches 
were burned and destroyed.” 

In the congressional elections of 1844, six Native Americans 
were elected members of congress; four from New York and 
two from Pennsylvania. In 1847, the party had disappeared 
in New York city, and it had but one member in congress. 

Continuing, on page 55, Mr. Cooper says : 

‘‘About 1852, when the question of slavery in the Ter¬ 
ritories, and its extension or its abolition in the States, was 
agitated, and causing sectional differences in the country, 
many AVhigs aud Democrats forsook their parties, and took 
sides on the questions of the day. This was aggravated by 
the large number of the alien naturalized citizens constantly 
added to the ranks of voters, who took sides with the Demo¬ 
crats and against the Whigs.” 

It is worthy of remark that they seemed to understand and 
appreciate better than modern naturalized citizens do, that it 
is to the Democratic party that aliens owe all the liberties and 
privileges they enjoy in their adopted home; and it was simply 
the part of manly justice and natural gratitude to give their 
votes to the party that had given them all their privileges. They 
seemed to understand that it was the Democratic party that had 
repealed the obnoxious Alien Laws passed by the Federalists, 
and had brought citizenship within their reach on five years’ 
residence instead of fourteen; they knew it was the Democratic 
party that had overthrown the restrictive native organizations 
formed in 1835 and 1844, to curtail and in a large measure 
destroy the privileges of foreigners who came to seek homes 
in America ; the Catholics remembered with manly gratitude 
that it was the Democratic party that stood up for freedom 
of worship when partisan fanatics were burning Romish 
churches, and hounding Catholic women and children to death 
in the “City of Brotherly Love.” The foreigners and 
Catholics of that day knew their friends, who stood by them 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


109 


when they sorely needed powerful friends ; and they never 
dreamed of allying themselves with the party that had tried 
to crush them, or of giving their support to any particular 
candidate who had always acted with the party opposed to 
their best interests. The alien naturalized citizens of that 
day clearly understood their dependence upon the Democratic 
party for liberty and protection, and that is why, in the 
language of Mr. CoojDer, they ^^took sides with the Democrats 
and against the Whigs,” and why as Mr. Cooper continues to 
say, referring to the year 1852 : 

Xativism then reappeared, but in a new form—that of a 
secret fraternity. Its real name and objects were not revealed, 
even to its members, until they reached a high degree in the 
order ; and the answer of members on being questioned on 
these subjects was, ‘ I don’t know ’—which gave it the popu¬ 
lar name, by which it is yet known, of ^Know-nothing.’ Its 
moving causes were the growing power and designs of the 
Roman Catholic Cliurch in America ; the sudden influx of 
aliens ; and the greed and incapacity of naturalized citizens 
for office. Its cardinal principle was : ^ Americans must rule 
America; ’ and its countersign was the order of General 
Washington on a critical occasion during the war : ^ Put none 
but Americans on guard to-night. ’ ” 

The American Ritual ” is published in Mr. Cooper’s Book, 
beginning on page 57, in the second and third Articles whereof 
the objects of the association and the qualifications for mem¬ 
bership are set forth. They are as follows, as quoted from Mr. 
Cooper’s book : 

Art. 2d. The object of this organization shall be to pro¬ 
tect every American citizen in the legal and proper exercise 
of all his civil and religious rights and privileges ; to resist 
the insidious policy of the Church of Rome, and all other 
foreign influence against our republican institutions in all 
lawful ways ; to place in all offices of honor, trust or profit, in 
the gift of the people, or by appointment, none but native- 
born Protestant citizens, and to protect, preserve and uphold 
the union of these States and the constitution of the same. 

Article 3d, Sec. 1.—A person to become a member of any 


110 


SUPERIORITY OF 


subordinate council must be twenty-one years of age ; he must 
believe in the existence of a Supreme Being as the Creator 
and Preserver of the universe. He must be a native-born 
citizen ; a Protestant, either born of Protestant parents, or 
reared under Protestant influence ; and not united in marriage 
with a Koman Catholic: provided, nevertheless, that in this 
last respect, the State, district or territorial councils shall be 
authorized to so construct their respective constitutions as 
shall best promote the interests of the American cause in their 
several jurisdictions ; and provided, moreover, that no member 
who may have a Eomaii Catholic wife shall be eligible to office 
in this order; and provided, further, should any State, dis¬ 
trict or territorial council prefer the words ‘ Eoman Catholic ’ 
as a disqualification to membership, in place of ^ Protestant ’ 
as a qualification, they may so consider this constitution and 
govern their action accordingly.” 

In 1854, the party organized upon these principles carried 
the elections against the Democrats in Massachusetts and 
Delaware, and polled 122,282 votes in New York. The fol¬ 
lowing year it elected the governors and legislatures in New 
Hampshire, Massachusetts, Ehode Island, Connecticut, New 
York, Kentucky and California ; the controller and legis¬ 
lature in Maryland, and the land commissioner in Texas ; 
while in Virginia, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana 
and Texas, the Democrats succeeded in defeating it by meager 
majorities. It made a national campaign, in 1856, upon a 
platform declaring, amongst other principles : 

3d. Americans must rule America, and to this end, native- 
born citizens should be selected for all State, federal and 
municipal offices, or government employment, in preference to 
all others.” 

9th. A change in the laws of naturalization, making a 
continued residence of twenty-one years, of all not heretofore 
provided for, an indispensable requisite of citizenship here¬ 
after, and excluding all paupers, and persons convicted of 
crime, from landing upon our shores ; but no interference with 
the vested rights of foreigners.” 

It is difficult to conjecture to what extreme this Native 
American party would have carried its restrictions upon for- 


DEMOCRA TIC A BMINISTRA TION. 


Ill 


eigiiers, or what would have beeu the measure of its success 
in its struggle against the Democrats, if the slavery question 
had not been brought to the front at the same period with 
greater success as a rallying issue for the opposition to the 
Democratic party. If it had succeeded in getting control of 
the government, and putting its restrictive policy in opera¬ 
tion, foreigners who came into the country would have been 
required to maintain a continuous residence of twenty-one 
years before being allowed to enjoy the privileges of citizen¬ 
ship, and the thousands upon thousands of Germans, and 
other foreigners, who have come into the country within the 
last thirty years, and who have unnaturally and ungratefully 
allied themselves with the Eepublican party, would not yet 
have gained the privilege of voting against the party that 
saved them from odious and unreasonable restrictions. 

It is an astonishing fact that some of the bitterest and 
most unreasoning partisans of the Republican party are for¬ 
eigners and their sons. Some of the most bigoted and 
intolerant Republicans personally known to the author, in 
a community where the majority for that party is over¬ 
whelming, are men who cannot go back a generation with¬ 
out striking an ancestor who came from the ‘^Auld Sod’’ 
to enjoy privileges created by the Democratic party, and 
many of whom have failed to wholly rid themselves of the 
brogue of their parents. One of the most implacable ene¬ 
mies of the Democratic party known to the author, one 
absolutely incapable of seeing anything good in anything 
that party ever advocated, is the son of a small Irish trades¬ 
man, who, but for the Democratic party, instead of enjoy¬ 
ing a princely income and residing in a palatial mansion, 
would most likely be a victim of the exactions of English 
landlordism, in a floorless hut, where they ^^kept the pig 
in the parlor.” Now, he is entirely too respectable to be a 
Democrat. 

The spirit of restriction upon and opposition to foreigners 
and Catholics, which manifested itself in such strength and 


112 


SUPERIORITY OF 


intolerance little more than thirty years ago, has never been 
crushed. It has merely been held in check by the large num¬ 
ber of votes, mostly German, which the Eepublican party has 
been able to secure without deserving them. 

In a circular recently issued to American voters by the 
powerful organization known as the ‘^American Alliance,” 
the following is stated as its object and policy, to wit : 

“ The repeal of the naturalization laws, the restriction of 
undesirable immigration, the amendment of the constitution 
of the United States restricting the elective franchise to 
twenty-one years of naturalization, to forbid and prevent the 
forming of political organizations, composed exclusively of for¬ 
eign-born residents, to interfere in the political affairs of this 
country.” 

If the Republican party should be defeated again upon the 
old issues, in the Presidential campaign of 1888, it will be an 
absolute necessity on the part of its bosses to adopt new party 
issues, the most available of which, from present indications, 
is prohibition. On that issue they will lose a large propor¬ 
tion of the German vote, which loss they will expect to far 
more than overbalance by absorbing the Prohibition party, 
and by probable accessions from the temperance element of 
the Democratic party. The result would be the removal of 
the only obstacle, to wit, the German vote, that has withheld 
the Republican party, since the war, from reviving and put¬ 
ting in practice the theories of the old Know-nothing party. 

There can be no doubt that America has suffered in recent 
years, by the influx of classes of foreigners whose presence 
is a detriment to any community ; paupers, criminals and 
brutishly ignorant creatures, who have been brought in by the 
cargo, under contract, to take the places of intelligent labor¬ 
ers who were driven to assert their manhood by striking 
against the exactions of monopolists and heartless capitalists. 

The presence of this undesirable element is due almost en¬ 
tirely to the practical operation of the class-favoring policy of 
the Republican party ; and yet cunning and unscrupulous 


DEMOCRATIC AD^IINISTRATION. 


113 


politicians, aided by restless agitators of high moral preten¬ 
sions, can readily make use of their presence and degrading 
influences as a rallying cry against foreigners in general, and 
arouse the spirit of Native Americanism to a higher pitch 
than it ever heretofore attained. Once get this restrictive 
spirit aroused, and set the clergymen to harmonious denunci¬ 
ation of the alleged growing tendency to the establishment of 
the Continental Sunday,” and the alleged dangerous growth 
of Eomanism, under the skillful manipulations of the mana¬ 
gers of the Republican machines, and naturalized foreigners 
will again be brought to realize their dependence upon the 
only party ever produced in the United States that extended 
freedom to all, intolerance to none. 

8 


114 


SUPERIORITY OF 


CHAPTER XL 

AFEICAN SLAVEKY IFT POLITICS. 

It would be difiBcult to find an intelligent citizen in any 
portion of the United States who does not rejoice that the 
institution of slavery has ceased to be a disturbing element 
in politics by ceasing to exist. The only purpose of devoting 
a chapter to the subject is to show its connection with the 
policies of party organizations. 

When the constitution was ratified by the several original 
thirteen States, the institution of African slavery existed in 
six of those States. It had been abolished in the other States, 
where it had previously existed, and the general public sen¬ 
timent was against it. AYhen the State of Virginia, prior to 
the adoption of the constitution, ceded the territory north¬ 
west of the Ohio River to the old Confederate government, 
Thomas Jefferson introduced a plan to the Confederate Con¬ 
gress for the temporary government of the territory then 
ceded, or that might be thereafter ceded by the several States, 
to the Confederate government. The plan of that great states¬ 
man contained a provision for laying out all of the territory, 
south as well as north of the Ohio River, into divisions 
having definite boundaries, which were to be gradually formed 
into States as they became sufficiently populated; and that 
was followed by this provision, to wit : 

‘‘After the year 1800 there shall be neither slavery nor in¬ 
voluntary servitude in any of the said States other than in 
the punishment of crimes, whereof the party shall have been 
duly convicted.’’ 

The plan was voted on in the Confederate Congress, but was 
not adopted, only six States voting for it, while the Articles of 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION, 


115 


Confederation required the votes of seven States to adopt it. 
However, the language of this provision of Mr. Jefferson’s 
plan became the model for all subsequent restrictions upon 
slavery, and his general plan was adopted as the framework 
of subsequent territorial government. The subject of gov¬ 
ernment for the unorganized territory was subsequently 
taken up in the Confederate Congress, after Mr. Jefferson 
had gone abroad in diplomatic service, and the committee 
of which Nathan Dane, of Massachusetts, was chairman, 
reported an ordinance which, was adopted July 13th, 1787; 
but it was made to apply only to the territory north-west 
of the Ohio River. It modified Mr. Jefferson’s proposed 
restriction upon slavery, so that it was made to read as fol¬ 
lows, to wit: 

There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude 
in the said territory, otherwise than in the punishment of 
crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted: 
provided always, that any person escaping into the same, from 
whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the 
original States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and 
conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service as 
aforesaid.” 

This proviso was the origin of the Fugitive Slave Laws, and 
was subsequently incorporated into the constitution. It will 
be observed that the first restriction upon the extension of 
slavery into the territory of the government was formulated 
by Mr. Jefferson, who afterwards became the father of the 
Democratic party ; and the first provision for reclaiming fugi¬ 
tive slaves was formulated by a representative from the State 
of Massachusetts, w'hich afterwards attained prominence in 
resisting the laws its representative was the first to suggest. If 
the plan of Mr. Jefferson had been adopted, the government 
would have entered upon the present century with but six 
slave States, and with every acre of its territory north and 
south free soil. The agitation that eventually led to civil war 
never could have arisen ; the slave-holding power would have 


116 


SUPERIORITY OF 


been confined to six States, and voluntary emancipation 
would certainly have taken place in Delaware, Maryland and 
Virginia, probably in North Carolina; and the other two 
States would not have been likely to continue an institution 
long after it had been abolished in the other States, 

The ordinance of 1787 effectually and finally settled that all 
the territory north of the Ohio River should be ‘^free soil.” 
On the other hand, the cessions by the several States of the 
territory south of the Ohio River were made, and accepted by 
the general government, as Prof. Johnston states it, ‘‘under 
a pledge not to interfere with the existing custom of slavery.” 
The language of the condition in the case of the cession of 
Tennessee by North Carolina is : “provided always that no 
regulations made or to be made by congress shall tend to 
emancipate slaves.” It will be observed that the question of 
slavery or no slavery in all the territory belonging to the 
United States, before the acquisition of Louisiana, was defi¬ 
nitely settled before political parties had become organized. 
We had no territory west of the Mississippi, and all east of 
that river and north of the Ohio was to be free, while slavery 
was not to be interfered with in the territory south of the 
Ohio. It followed, therefore, that there never was any contest 
about slavery connected with the admission of any new State 
east of the Mississippi River. 

Another question affecting the rights of slave-holders was 
definitely and distinctly settled long before opposing political 
parties were organized. It was the question of returning 
fugitive slaves to their owners. The constitution of the 
United States, Art. IV, sect. 2, paragraph 3, contains the fol¬ 
lowing unmistakable provision, to wit: 

“ No person held to service or labor in one State, under the 
laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of 
any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service 
or labor, but shall be delivered on claim of the party to 
%vhom such service or labor may be due.’^ 

During the first term of Washington’s administration, con- 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


117 


gress passed the first Fugitive Slave Law, providing the man- 
ner of carrying into effect the foregoing constitutional provi¬ 
sion. It was passed without debate, almost unanimously, and 
it received the approving signature of President Washington, 
February 12, 1793. It empowered the owner of any fugitive 
slave, his agent or attorney, to seize such fugitive, take him 
before any district or circuit judge of the United States or any 
magistrate of the county or municipality where the arrest was 
made, and, on proof of ownership, such judge or magistrate 
was required to issue a certificate of ownership, which was 
sufficient warrant to the owner, or his representative, to remove 
the fugitive to the place from whence he had fled; and it was 
made a finable offense to rescue, conceal, or obstruct the arrest 
of any such fugitive. 

Some of the magistrates constituted under the laws of the 
free States were reluctant to issue the certificates of owner¬ 
ship required by this law, and some complaints were made of 
attempts to kidnap free blacks under the pretense that they 
were fugitive slaves ; while, on the other hand, complaints 
were made in the border slave States of aid being given to 
fugitives to such extent as to render their hold on such prop¬ 
erty insecure; but no very serious trouble grew out of the exe¬ 
cution of the law for many years. 

When Louisiana was ceded to. the United States by France, 
the custom of slavery was in existence amongst its inhabit¬ 
ants. By an act of congress, approved by President Jefferson, 
on March 26th, 1804, that portion of the Louisiana purchase 
south of the 33d parallel of north latitude was organized into 
a territory named Orleans, and the portion north of that par¬ 
allel was organized into a territory named Louisiana, the name 
of which was subsequently changed to Missouri. The act pro¬ 
vided that no slaves should be introduced into such territory, 
except by a citizen of the United States removing into said 
territory for actual settlement, and being at the time of such 
removal bona fide owner of such slave or slaves.” 

When the inhabitants of Orleans Territory came to frame a 


118 


SUPERIORITY OF 


State constitution preparatory to admission into the Union, it 
is a singular fact that no mention of slavery was made therein, 
and the Territory was admitted as a State under the name of 
Louisiana. 

In 1818, a bill proposing to admit the Territory of Missouri 
as a State was introduced in congress, when Mr. Tallmadge, of 
New York, moved an amendment, providing that “ the further 
introduction of slavery be prohibited in the said State of Mis¬ 
souri, and that all children born in the State after its admission 
to the Union shall be free at the age of twenty-five years.” 

In Blaine’s Book, Vol. I., page 15, it is said : 

A violent agitation at once arose, continued for two years, 
and was finally allayed by the famous compromise of 1820. 
The outbreak was so sudden, its course so turbulent, and its 
subsidence so complete, that for many years it was regarded 
as phenomenal in our politics, and its repetition in the high¬ 
est degree improbable if not impossible.” 

The famous compromise of 1820,” known in American his¬ 
tory as the ^‘Missouri Compromise,” is embodied in the 8th 
section of the act of congress authorizing the inhabitants of 
the Territory of Missouri to frame a constitution preparatory 
to admission into the Union as a State, and is in the following 
language, to wit : 

That in all that territory ceded by France to the United 
States under the name of Louisiana, which lies north of 36° 
30' north latitude, not included within the limits of the State 
contemplated by this act, slavery and involuntary servitude, 
otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, whereof the party 
has been duly convicted, shall be, and is hereby, forever pro¬ 
hibited : Provided always, that any person escaping into the 
same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any 
State or Territory of the United States, such fugitives may be 
lawfully reclaimed and conveyed to the person claiming his or 
her labor or service as aforesaid.” 

It will be observed that this was simply an extension of the 
restriction of the Ordinance of 1787, applicable to the territory 


DEMOCRATIC AD^IINISTRATION. 


119 


norlli of the Ohio and east of the Mississippi; and it provided 
for all of the territory owned by the United States at the date 
of the compromise, except Oregon and Florida. The ques¬ 
tion of slavery in the Territories being thus definitely set¬ 
tled by mutual concessions of the contending sections, Mis¬ 
souri was admitted into the Union as a slave State. The 
strife about slavery in Missouri was in no sense a conflict 
between two organized political parties. The compromise was 
effected during the same year in which President Monroe 
was re-elected without opposition ; and by the same congress 
in which Mr. Clay, then a prominent Democratic leader, was 
almost unanimously elected speaker. The Missouri contro¬ 
versy developed a wide difference of opinion between North¬ 
ern and Southern Democrats upon the question of slavery ; 
but the compromise settled their differences for many years. 
The Missouri Compromise was a Democratic measure, and it 
continued to be the law for over thirty years of great pros¬ 
perity. 

Who were responsible for reviving the slavery trouble, bring¬ 
ing it into party politics, and finally fanning it into the flames 
of civil war ? 

Mr. Blaine, in the first volume of his Twenty Years of 
Congress,” at page 21, after stating that for the next twenty 
years following the adoption of the Missouri Compromise ^^no 
agitation of the slavery question appeared in any political con¬ 
vention, or affected any considerable body of the people,” pro¬ 
ceeds to say : 

‘‘Within that period, however, there grew up a school of 
anti-slavery men far more radical and progressive than those 
who had resisted the admission of Missouri as a slave State. 
They formed what is known as the Abolition party, and they 
devoted themselves to the utter destruction of slavery by every 
instrumentality which they could lawfully employ. Acutely 
trained in the political as well as the ethical principles of 
the great controversy, they clearly distinguished between the 
powers which congress might and might not exercise under 
the limitations of the constitution. They began, therefore, by 


120 


SUPERIORITY OF 


demaDding the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, 
and in all the national forts, arsenals and dockyards, where, 
without question or cavil, the exclusive jurisdiction belonged 
to congress ; they asked that congress, under its constitutional 
power to regulate commerce between the States, would pro¬ 
hibit the inter-State slave-trade; and they prayed that our 
ships sailing on the high seas should not be permitted by the 
government to carry slaves as part of their cargo, under the 
free flag of the United States, and outside the local jurisdic¬ 
tion that held them in bondage. They denied that a man 
should aid in executing any law whose enforcement did vio¬ 
lence to his conscience and trampled under foot the Divine 
commands. Hence they would not assist in the surrender and 
return of fugitive slaves, holding it rather to be their duty to 
resist such violation of the natural rights of man by every 
peaceful method, and justifying their resistance by the truths 
embodied in the Declaration of Independence, and, still more 
impressively, by the precepts taught in the New Testament.” 

It may be true that the early Abolition leaders kept their 
projects within ^^the limitations of the constitution” and 
resorted to only ^‘peaceful” methods of resisting the execu¬ 
tion of the Fugitive Slave Law; but they, nevertheless, came 
to denounce the constitution as a ‘‘covenant with hell,” and 
the American flag as a “flaunting lie,” and boldly appealed 
to a “higher law”than the constitution of the United States 
and the laws made in pursuance thereof. Like the mod¬ 
ern Prohibitionists, who are their imitators with respect to 
methods, they denounced all slave-holders, as the Prohibi¬ 
tionists denounce all manner of liquor dealers, as personal 
criminals, being enormous sinners, as they asserted, in .the 
sight of God; and they demanded that the institution of 
slavery should be uprooted by force, as the Prohibitionists 
demand the use of force to overthrow the liquor traffic. As 
early as 1835, their efforts to excite discontent amongst the 
slaves, and encourage them to insurrection and flight, had 
been carried to such extent that President Jackson, in a mes¬ 
sage to congress, used the following language, to wit : 

“I must also invite your attention to the painful excite- 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


121 


ment produced in the South by attempts to circulate, through 
the mails, inflammatory appeals addressed to the passions of 
the slaves, in prints, and in various sorts of publications, cal¬ 
culated to stimulate them to insurrection and to produce all 
the horrors of a servile war.’’ 


A bill was reported to the Senate to prohibit, under penal¬ 
ties, the use of the mails for the circulation of incendiary pub¬ 
lications tending to instigate the slaves to insurrection, but 
it was vigorously opposed, even by so great a statesman as 
Daniel Webster, as beyond the power of congress; and it was 
defeated. 

This measure, followed by petitions to congress at almost 
every session, couched in language of direct personal insult 
applied indiscriminately to the slave-holding population, and 
praying for some sort of interference with them in their con¬ 
stitutional rights respecting slavery, led to many acrimonious 
debates in congress, and aroused the Southern people to a 
high pitch of indignation. This mischievous and aggravating 
agitation was carried on until, in 1842, the Supreme Court of 
the United States rendered a decision in the case of Prigg v. 
Pennsylvania, arising under the Fugitive Slave Law. It 
affirmed the right of the master to recover his fugitive slave in 
any State to which he might flee ; but held that the magis¬ 
trates chosen under the laws of the several States were not 
bound to perform the duties required of them by the Federal 
law of 1793. Mr. Buchanan, in his hook entitled Buchanan’s 
Administration,” at page 16, gives the following account of 
the effect of this decision, to wit: 

Then commenced a furious agitation against the execution 
of this so-called ‘ sinful and inhuman ’ law. State magistrates 
were prevailed upon by the Abolitionists to refuse their agency 
in carrying it into effect. The legislatures of several States, 
in conformity with this decision, passed laws prohibiting 
these magistrates and other State officials from assisting in its 
execution. The use of the State jails was denied for the safe¬ 
keeping of the fugitives. Personal Liberty Bills were passed. 


122 


SUPERIORITY OF 


interposing insurmountable obstacles to the recoTery of slaves. 
Every means which ingenuity could devise was put in opera¬ 
tion to render the law a dead letter. Indeed, the excitement 
against it rose so high that the life and liberty of the master 
who pursued his fugitive slave into a free State were placed in 
imminent peril. For this he was often imprisoned, and, in 
some instances, murdered.’^ 

More particular mention is made of these Personal Liberty 
Bills, and the conduct of inhabitants of the free States in 
relation to the Fugitive Slave Laws, in a subsequent chapter 
treating of Disunionists and Nullifiers.” 

In the midst of the excitement relating to the Fugitive 
Slave Law, came the famous Wilmot Proviso.” In 1846, a 
bill was presented in congress for an appropriation of money 
to be used in connection with securing peace and adjusting 
boundaries with Mexico; and to this bill, Mr. Wilmot offered 
a proviso in these words : 

‘^That, as an express and fundamental condition to the 
acquisition of any territory from the Eepublic of Mexico by 
the United States, by virtue of any treaty which may be nego¬ 
tiated between them, and to the use by the executive of the 
moneys herein appropriated, neither slavery nor involuntary 
servitude shall ever exist in any part of said territory, except 
for crime, whereof the party shall first be duly convicted.” 

This ill-timed rider ” to an appropriation bill necessarily 
aroused great excitement upon the question of slavery in terri¬ 
tory not then acquired ; but, in looking back over the events 
of forty and more years ago, it must be apparent to the dis¬ 
passionate observer, that the anti-slavery element spared no 
opportunity to agitate the question of slavery, and that they 
were too impatient to await the coming of events in their 
natural course. The Wilmot Proviso” gave rise to violent 
and protracted discussions in congress, and, for four years, 
prevented the establishment of territorial government in the 
territory acquired from Mexico, besides awakening a feeling 
of bitter hostility between the people of the North and of the 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


123 


South. Still, however, slavery was a sectional, and not a 
party question. David Wilmot, who offered the dangerous 
proviso, was a Democratic member of congress from Pennsyl¬ 
vania, while Gen. Taylor, who was the successful Whig candi¬ 
date for the Presidency in 1848, during the very height of the 
controversy, in answer to a Southern Whig who owned one 
hundred slaves, and who felt some apprehension about his 
property in the event of Whig success, said that he was him¬ 
self the owner of three hundred slaves, and that they consti¬ 
tuted the bulk of his property. 

On the 4th of February, 1850, the lower house of congress 
laid resolutions favoring the proviso upon the table ; and 
then the immortal Clay came again to the front with the 
compromise measures of 1850, consisting of five distinct Acts, 
viz.: 1. An act supplementary to, and amendatory of, the 
Fugitive Slave Law, and designed to make it more effective; 
2. An act to admit California as a free State, although a large 
portion of it was south of 36° 30'. 3 and 4. Acts to estab¬ 

lish territorial governments in New Mexico and Utah, under 
which they were to be admitted as States, with or without 
slavery as their respective constitutions might provide ; ” and 
5. An act to abolish the domestic slave trade in the District of 
Columbia. This compromise, taken in connection with the 
Missouri Compromise, provided for all the territory acquired 
from Mexico as well as from France, and allayed the hostile 
feeling between the sections upon the slavery question. 

Two years later, when the Democratic and Whig parties 
respectively met to formulate platforms and nominate candi¬ 
dates for the Presidential campaign of 1852, they both affirma¬ 
tively recognized the compromise measures of 1850 as a final 
settlement of the slavery question. A resolution of the Dem¬ 
ocratic platform pledges that party to resist all attempts at 
renewing, in congress or out of it, the slavery agitation, under 
whatever shape or color the attempt may be made.’’ The 
eighth resolution of the Whig platform is as follows, to 
wit: 


124 


SUPERIORITY OF 


‘‘That the series of Acts of the Thirty-second Congress, 
the Act known as the Fugitive Slave Law included, are 
received and acquiesced in by the Whig party of the United 
States as a settlement in principle and substance of the dan¬ 
gerous and exciting questions which they embrace ; and, as far 
as they are concerned, we will maintain them and insist upon 
their strict enforcement, until time and experience shall 
demonstrate the necessity of further legislation to guard 
against the evasion of the laws on the one hand and the 
abuse of their powers on the other—not impairing their pres¬ 
ent efficiency ; and we deprecate the further agitation of the 
question thus settled as dangerous to our peace, and will 
discountenance all efforts to continue or renew such agi¬ 
tation whenever, wherever, or however the attempt may be 
made ; and we will maintain this system as essential to 
the nationality of the Whig party and the integrity of the 
Union,^* 

This resolution was adopted by a vote of two hundred and 
twelve to seventy, and it clearly shows the sense of danger to 
the Union apprehended by the Whigs as the result of the 
formation of a sectional party. It will be observed that sev¬ 
enty delegates to the Whig convention voted against this reso¬ 
lution. They were all from the free States. It is a fact 
worthy of note that, in 1843, Massachusetts and Vermont 
had passed Personal Liberty Bills of the character mentioned 
in the above extract from Mr. Buchanan’s Book; whilst 
Pennsylvania, in 1847, and Ehode Island, in 1848, had 
adopted similar laws ; and these acts were still in force in 
these States at the date of the Whig convention. It may 
be further noted, in this connection, that, as early as 1840, 
the Abolition party had a Presidential candidate in the field 
who received 7,609 votes; in 1844, their Presidential candi¬ 
date received 62,300 votes ; in 1848, the Free Soil Presidential 
candidate received 291,263 votes, out of a total poll of 2,871,- 
908 votes. At the Presidential election of 1852, the Demo¬ 
crats polled 1,601,474 votes ; the Whigs, 1,386,578 ; and the 
Free Soilers, 156,149. However, the Whig electors were 
chosen in only four States : Massachusetts, Vermont, Ken- 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION, 


125 


tucky and Tennessee ; and the great old Whig party began to 
go to pieces. The slavery question was the wedge that 
divided it into Northern and Southern wings ; and whilst an 
effort was made to hold the opposition to the Democratic 
party together on the Native American issue, the attempt was 
a failure, as has been shown in the preceding chapter. Whilst 
the opposition to the Democracy were vainly seeking an issue 
upon which they could unite, the slavery question was sud¬ 
denly brought to the front again with a fury far transcending 
all previous agitation upon the subject. The occasion and 
manner of its revival is thus described in Buchanan’s Book, 
at page 26 : 

Senator Douglas, on the 4th of January, 1854, reported a. 
bill from the Committee on Territories to establish a territorial 
government in Nebraska. This bill was silent in regard to 
the Missouri Compromise. It was nearly in the usual form, 
and would have doubtless passed with but little, if any, oppo¬ 
sition. Before it was reached in order, the Whig Senator 
Dixon, of Kentucky, on the 16th January, gave notice that 
when it should come before the Senate, he would move to add 
to it a section repealing the Missouri Compromise, not only in 
regard to Nebraska, but all other Territories of the United 
States. A few days thereafter, on the 23d January, the Com¬ 
mittee on Territories, through Mr. Douglas, their chairman, 
offered a substitute for the original bill. This, after dividing 
Nebraska into two Territories, the one still bearing that name, • 
and the other the name of Kansas, proceeded to annul the 
Missouri Compromise in regard to these and all our other 
Territories. ” 

This bill passed the Senate by a vote of thirty-seven to four¬ 
teen, and the House by one hundred and thirteen to one hun¬ 
dred. The Southern senators, with tvvo exceptions, voted for 
it, regardless of party, as did fourteen Democratic Northern 
senators. In the House the entire body of Southern repre¬ 
sentatives voted for it,^ except seven Whigs and two Demo¬ 
crats, whilst of the Northern Democrats, forty-four voted for 
and forty-four against it. 


126 


SUPERIORITY OF 


The repeal of the Missouri Compromise reopened the vexa¬ 
tious question of slavery in the Territories, and furnished an 
issue for the organization of a new party that was destined to 
play an important part in American history under the name 
of the Kepublican party. 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION, 


127 


CHAPTEK XII. 

THE KISE OF THE BEPUBLICAI?’ PAKTY. 

The day after the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska hill, 
of which an account has been given in the last preceding 
chapter, some thirty members of congress met for consulta¬ 
tion, and the leader of the meeting, Israel Washburn, of Maine, 
suggested Eepublican ” as the name of the new party to be 
organized to resist the extension of slavery into the Territories. 
So far as ascertained, the first ofiicial adoption of the name 
was at a convention held at Jackson in the State of Michigan, 
July 6th, 1854. During that and the following month the 
name was adopted at the State conventions of the opposi¬ 
tion to the Democracy in Wisconsin, Maine, Ohio, Indiana, 
Illinois and Iowa, although it was not recognized in congress 
until the beginning of the next year. The new party speedily 
secured popular majorities in most of the Northern States. 
In the Western States, it supplanted all other party organiza¬ 
tions opposed to the Democrats ; but in the Eastern and 
Southern States, the Whig and American organizations were 
still kept up. 

On the 22d of February, 1856, a convention of representa¬ 
tives of the new party assembled in Lafayette Hall in the city 
of Pittsburgh, pursuant to a call issued by the State commit¬ 
tees of Ohio, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Wiscon¬ 
sin and Michigan, for the purpose of effecting a national 
organization. At this meeting, a national committee was 
selected, and a call issued for a national convention of d-ele- 
gates to meet at Philadelphia, on June 17th, 1856, for the pur¬ 
pose of formulating a platform of principles and nominating 
candidates for the then approaching Presidential campaign. 


128 


SUPERIORITY OF 


The only slave States represented at the Philadelphia con¬ 
vention were Delaware, Maryland and Kentucky, and their 
delegates had a meager constituency in their respective States; 
so that, for the first time in American history, a purely 
sectional party came into being. 

The elements entering into the formation of the new 
Eepublican party, as stated by Prof. Johnston, in his article 
on the ‘‘Eepublican Party,’’ published in the third volume of 
“ Lalor’s Cyclopaedia,” were the following, to wit : 1. The 
members of the Free-Soil party, who bodily united with the 
new party; including such leaders as Hale, Julian, Chase, C. 
F. Adams, Sumner, Wilmot, F. P. Blair, and Preston King. 
“ ^lany of these, like Chase, were naturally Democrats, but 
had been forced into opposition to their party by its unneces¬ 
sary deference to the feelings of its southern wing.” 2. For¬ 
mer Whigs, either originally anti-slavery, or forced into that 
attitude by the compromise measures of 1850; including such 
leaders as Lincoln, Seward, Greeley, Fessenden, Thaddeus 
Stevens, Sherman, Dayton, Corwin, and Collamer. “ This 
element, being much the more numerous and influential, 
controlled the policy of the new party on other points than 
slavery, and made it a broad-construction party, inclined 
towards a protective tariff, internal improvements, and gov¬ 
ernment control over banking.” 3. A less numerous class, 
originally Whigs or Democrats, who had entered the Know- 
nothing organization, and then drifted into the new party as 
the slavery controversy grew hotter; including such leaders as 
Wilson, Banks, Burlingame, Colfax and Henry Winter Davis, 
some of whom had been Free-Soilers as well as Know-nothings. 
4. “In, but not of, the new party, were the original 
Abolitionists, led by Giddings and Lovejoy in Congress, and 
Garrison and Wendell Phillips out of Congress. These w^re 
the guerillas of the party, for whose utterances it did not hold 
itself responsible, and Avho were yet always leading it into a 
stronger opposition to slavery; ” and, he might have added 
with propriety, eventually succeeded in bringing it up to the 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


129 


full measure of their most extreme Higher Law ’’ doctrines. 
5. A fifth class, not so numerous as the second, but fully as 
important from a party point of view, came directly from 
the Democratic party, Hamlin, Cameron of Pennsylvania, 
Trumbull of Illinois, Doolittle of Wisconsin, Montgomery 
Blair, Wm. C. Bryant of New York, and Gideon Welles of 
Connecticut, being examples. These, and the rank and file 
represented by them, brought into the new party that feeling 
of dependence upon the people, and of consideration for the 
feelings, and even the prejudices of the people, which the 
Whig party had always lacked.'^ 

Some of these constituent elements came into the new 
party gradually ; but, in that portion of Western Pennsylva¬ 
nia where the author^s personal acquaintance is most general, 
the bulk of the prominent local leaders of the new party, as 
early as the campaign of 1856, and during many subsequent 
campaigns, as well as a strong following of the rank and file, 
were drawn from the Democratic party. Prof. Johnston 
mentions a sixth class, which, however, did not enter the 
Kepublican party until after it had gained control of the 
general government. These were the War Democrats,” so- 
called ; but it must not be understood that any considerable 
portion of the Northern Democrats who favored the war, and 
took zealous and efficient part in it, belonged to this class. 
The War Democrats ” were a distinct class, who allied 
themselves politically with the Eepublican party, some 
permanently and some during the war; and they are to be 
carefully distinguished from that great mass of Northern 
Democrats, mentioned more particularly in a subsequent 
chapter, who never for a moment severed their political con¬ 
nection with the Democratic party, and who ardently sup¬ 
ported the war. Their numbers greatly exceeded the number 
of Southern Democrats who took part in the rebellion, as 
clearly appears in Chapter XIV. Of that class distinctively 
known as “War Democrats,” Prof. Johnston says, in the 
article already referred to and quoted from, that they “ united 
9 


130 


SUPERIORITY OF 


with the Republicans during the war of the rebellion,” mean¬ 
ing a political union^ being, as he says, ^^such as Andrew 
Johnson, B.F. Butler, Stanton, Holt of Kentucky, McClernand 
and Logan of Illinois, and Dix, Dickinson, Lyman Tremain, 
Cochrane and Sickles of New York. Many of these dropped 
out again after the end of the rebellion; though some, as 
Butler, Stanton and Logan, were more permanent in their 
connection.” 

The platform adopted by the Republicans at their first 
national nominating conxention, at Philadelphia, in 1856, 
declared the opposition of the new party to the repeal of the 
Missouri Compromise, to the extension of slavery into free 
territory, and to the refusal to admit Kansas as a free State ; 
that congress has sovereign power over the national territory, 
which should be exercised to prohibit in the Territories 
those twin relics of barbarism, polygamy and slavery ; ” it 
denounced the Ostend manifesto, and declared in favor of a 
Pacific railroad, and of ^^appropriations by congress for the 
improvement of rivers and harbors of a national character 
It teas silent on the subject of the tariff. 

On the first ballot for a Presidential candidate, John C. 
Fremont received 359 votes, McLean 196, Sumner 2, and 
Seward 1; on the second ballot, Fremont was nominated 
unanimously. For Vice-President, Dayton received 259 votes, 
Lincoln 110, Banks 46, Wilmot 43, Sumner 35, with 53 votes 
scattering; and then Dayton was nominated unanimously. 
Prof. Johnston says : 

Fremont’s nomination was intended to gratify the Free- 
Soil and Democratic elements of the party ; to provide a 
popular rallying cry, ‘ Free soil, free speech, free men and 
Fremont ; ’ to present a candidate free from antagonisms 
on the slavery question, and thus to win votes on all sides. 
Dayton’s nomination was the Whig share of the result. Fre¬ 
mont was defeated, but his defeat was a narrow one, and the 
votes of Illinois and Pennsylvania would have made him 
President. It is noteioorthy that in 1860 provision was made 
for both of these States, for the former by Lincoln's nomu 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


131 


nation, and for the latter hy a protective tariff clause in the 
platform’’ 

From wbicli statement it appears that the Eepublican party 
first declared itself in favor of a high tariff simply as a vote- 
catching measure ; and, in our day, it may be said that a 
large portion of the Republicans of the agricultural States sup¬ 
port high protective duties as a party necessity, rather than 
from any hearty approval of a system that is manifestly detri¬ 
mental to their interests. They would rather bear the unjust 
burdens than permit the Democratic party to control the 
government. 

The passage of the Kansas-Nebraska bill was followed by 
some modifications of the Personal Liberty Bills in the four 
States where such enactments existed, and the passage, in the 
course of time, of similar measures in six of the other free 
States ; the object of these bills being to embarrass the execu¬ 
tion of the Fugitive Slave Law, and to practically nullify it. 
A bitter strife, often attended with collisions and bloodshed, 
was waged between the pro-slavery and anti-slavery forces in 
Kansas; and the organization of a powerful sectional party in 
the free States was regarded by the Southern people as a 
serious menace to the institution of slavery in the States 
where it existed, as well as in the Territories where they de¬ 
sired to extend it. 

It will be observed that the Republican platform of 1856 
declared only against the existence and extension of slavery 
in the Territories ; it gave no hint of a purpose to abolish the 
institution in any of the States where it existed, nor in the 
District of Columbia, or the forts, arsenals, or other property 
of the United States, nor of any intention to restrict the inter¬ 
state slave trade, nor any dissatisfaction with the principle or 
provisions of the Fugitive Slave Laws. Although the party 
managers were careful to avoid any formal utterance com¬ 
mitting the organization to any further opposition to slavery 
than its prohibition in the Territories, it is a well-known fact 
that many of the leading and even most conservative members 


132 


SUPERIORITY OF 


of the new party organization contemplated a far more radical 
hostility to slavery. They did not by any means confine their 
teachings to the exclusion of slavery from the Territories; 
they zealously taught the doctrine that the States must all 
become free or slave. No man connected with the new party 
ranked above Wm. H. Seward, then a senator from New 
York. In a great speech made at Rochester on the 25th of 
October, 1858, and widely circulated North and South, he 
said : 

‘‘Free labor and slave labor, those antagonistic systems, 
are continually coming into close contact, and collision re¬ 
sults. Shall I tell you what this collision means ? . . . 
It is an irrepressible conflict between opposing and enduring 
forces, and it means that the United States must and will, 
sooner or later, become either entirely a slaveholding nation 
or entirely a free-labor nation. Either the cotton and rice 
fields of South Carolina and the sugar plantations of Louisiana 
will ultimately be tilled by free labor, and Charleston and 
New Orleans become marts for legitimate merchandise alone, 
or else the rye fields and wheat fields of Massachusetts and 
New York must again be surrendered by their farmers to slave 
culture and to the production of slaves, and Boston and New 
York become once more markets for trade in the bodies and 
souls of men. '*’ 

In the previous July, in a speech made at Springfield to the 
Republican State convention of Illinois, Abraham Lincoln, 
then second to none except Senator Seward as a leader of the 
new party, said, referring to the increased agitation upon the 
slavery question : 

“ In my opinion it will not cease until a crisis shall have 
been reached and passed. ‘ A house divided against itself 
cannot stand.’ I believe this government cannot endure per¬ 
manently half slave and half free. . . . Either the oppo¬ 
nents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place 
it where the public mind will rest in the belief that it is in 
the course of ultimate extinction ; or its advocates will push 
it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, 
old as well as new—North as well as South.” 


DEMOCRATIC ADIIINISTRATIOM, 


133 


These speeches of Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Seward were not the 
rash utterances of the ‘‘ guerillas ’’ of the new sectional party ; 
they were the deliberately considered and carefully written 
sentiments of the two recognized leaders of the party, East 
and West. Both men were seeking the nomination of the 
party for the Presidency ; both were astute politicians ; they 
knew the temper of the members of the new party organiza¬ 
tion ; they knew the nature of the sentiments demanded by 
the membership for their Presidential candidate in 1860 ; they 
knew that a mere expression of opposition to slavery in the 
Territories would fall far short of the advanced sentiment of 
the new party ; something more radical was demanded, and 
Mr. Lincoln’s bold bid for party favor, in July, was followed 
by an equally bold and more oratorical bid on the part of his 
great Eastern rival for the nomination. The result demon¬ 
strated the fact that neither of-these able men had mistaken 
the sentiments of the members of the new party ; for, when 
the nominating convention met at Chicago, in May, 1860, the 
respective authors of these radical and widely circulated 
speeches were found to far surpass all others in the favor of 
the delegates. 

At the respective dates of these extraordinary speeches, 
there were about four million slaves of all ages and sexes in 
the United States. In fifteen States, it was then as lawful to 
hold slaves as any other species of property. Hundreds of 
millions of dollars were invested in that species of property, 
and the business interests as well as the social establishments 
of the Southern States were largely regulated by, and dependent 
upon, the existence of the institution of slavery. To uproot 
the institution involved a radical change in the business and 
social habits of the Southern people, and the destruction of a 
vast element of their wealth and possessions. The people 
residing in the Southern States in 1860 had not established 
the institution of slavery. It was in full life long before they 
were born. Their parents and grandparents had been slave¬ 
holders ; the constitution and laws of their respective States, 


134 


SUPERIORITY OF 


and of the TJnited States, recognized their right to own and 
use slaves ; and the moral codes of their religious teachers 
from infancy acknowledged the righteousness of the institution 
of slavery. To the minds of people so reared and situated, it 
was preposterous to assert that slavery was wicked, degrading, 
or in any way objectionable ; and such assertion involved a 
direct personal insult to every one of them, as well as to their 
ancestors of both sexes, their law-makers, their judges and 
their religious teachers. They were by no means an inferior 
people, mentally, morally or physically. Referring to the 
Southern leaders ’’ of the period before the war, the following 
testimonial is recorded in Blaine’s Book, at page 45 : 

Those leaders constituted a remarkable body of men. 
Having before them the example of Jefferson, of Madison, 
and of George Mason in Virginia, of Nathaniel Macon in 
North Carolina, and of the Pinckneys and Eaitledges in South 
Carolina, they gave deejD study to the science of government. 
They were admirably trained as debaters, and they became 
highly skilled in the management of parliamentary bodies. As 
a rule, they were liberally educated, many of them graduates 
of Northern colleges, a still larger number taking their degrees 
at Transylvania in Kentucky, at Chapel Hill in North Caro¬ 
lina, and at Mr. Jefferson’s peculiar but admirable institution 
in Virginia. Their secluded mode of life on the plantation 
gave them leisure for reading and reflection. They took pride 
in their libraries, pursued the law so far as it increased their 
equipment for a public career, and devoted themselves to po¬ 
litical affairs with an absorbing ambition. Their domestic 
relations imparted manners that were haughty and sometimes 
offensive ; they were quick to take affront, and they not un- 
frequently brought needless personal disputation into the dis¬ 
cussion of public questions ; but they were, almost without 
exception, men of high integrity, and they were especially and 
jealously careful of the public money. Too often ruinously 
lavish in their personal expenditures, they believed in an 
economical government, and, throughout the long period of 
their domination, they guarded the Treasury with rigid and 
unceasing vigilance against every attempt at extravagance, 
and against every form of corruption.” 

Let any sane man consider the natural and unavoidable 


DEMOCRATIC AD3IINISTRATI0N. 


135 


effect upon the minds of such people of such speeches as those 
made by Lincoln at Springfield and Seward at Kochester in 
1858, and the far more aggravating speeches and publications 
produced throughout the North by Abolition leaders. Every 
intelligent citizen, North as well as South, knew in 1858 that 
it was simply impossible ever to fasten the institution of slav¬ 
ery upon the people of the free States. At that date the 
Union was composed of thirty-two States, seventeen free, 
fifteen slave; and there was no possibility of manipulating 
the Territories so as to ever secure three-fourths of the States 
to slavery. Even if it had been within the scope of the con¬ 
stitution to permit the amendment of that instrument so as to 
establish slavery within a State against the will of its inhabit¬ 
ants, it is certain that such amendment would require the 
separate ratification of three-fourths of the States ; and it was 
absolutely impossible ever to secure such ratification. In the 
face of these unquestionable facts, there could be but one 
meaning on the part of any intelligent man who asserted that 
all the States must become free or slave ; and that was that all 
the States as well as the Territories must become free. The 
doctrine necessarily involved the uprooting of the institution 
of slavery, and the overthrow of the industrial and social estab¬ 
lishments of the South ; and it was so understood by all the 
people. North as well as South. 

Closely following upon the Springfield and Rochester speeches 
of the great leaders of the already powerful new sectional party, 
came the publication and extensive circulation of Helper’s 
book, entitled Impending Crisis of the South,” which was 
one of the most offensive libels ever published against any peo¬ 
ple, without distinction of age or sex. The author of that 
book formulated a plan for the abolition of slavery in the 
Southern States, an outline of which, as given in his own lan¬ 
guage, is as follows, to wit: 

1st. Thorough organization and independent political 
action on the part of the non-slaveholding whites of the 
South. 


136 


SUPERIORITY OF 


^^2d. Ineligibility of pro-slavery slaveholders. Never an¬ 
other vote to any one who advocates the retention and per¬ 
petuation of human slavery. 

“3d. No co-operation with pro-slavery politicians—no fel¬ 
lowship with them in religion—no affiliation with them in 
society. 

“4th. No patronage to pro-slavery merchants—no guest- 
ship with slave-waiting hotels—no fees to pro-slavery lawyers 
—no employment to pro-slavery physicians—no audience to 
pro-slavery parsons. 

“5th. No hiring of slaves by non-slaveholders. 

“ 6th. Abrupt discontinuance of subscriptions to pro-slavery 
newspapers. 

7th. The greatest possible encouragement to free white 
labor.’’ 

Having stated this as “the outline of our scheme for the 
abolition of slavery in the Southern States,” the author, after 
indulging freely in coarse taunts, proceeds ; 

“Thus, terror engenderers of the South, have we fully and 
frankly defined our position ; we have no modifications to pro¬ 
pose, no compromise to offer, nothing to retract. Frown, sirs, 
fret, foam, prepare your weapons, threat, strike, shoot, stab, 
bring on civil war, dissolve the Union, nay, annihilate the 
solar system if you will—do all this, more, less, better, worse, 
anything—do what you will, sirs, you can neither foil nor 
intimidate us ; our purpose is firmly fixed as the eternal pil¬ 
lars of heaven ; we have determined to abolish slavery, and so 
help us God, abolish it we will! ” 

The intelligent foreigner who has come in, and the native- 
born voter who has grown up, within the last thirty years, will 
readily pronounce such stuff to be the crazy ravings of a luna¬ 
tic to which no intelligent slaveholder should have given any 
attention ; but stay ! This book came before the public with 
the following commendation from Senator Seward : 

“ I have read the ^ Impending Crisis of the South ’ tvHJi 
great attention. It seems to me a work of great merit, rich 
yet accurate in statistical information, and logical in analy¬ 
sis.” 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


137 


A Republican committee in New York, including Horace 
Greeley and Thurlow Weed, issued a circular commendatory 
of Helper’s Book, and proposing to issue a hundred thousand 
copies of a compendium of it for gratuitous circulation. In 
order to raise subscriptions for that purpose, they obtained 
the signatures of sixty-eight Republican members of congress 
to the following recommendation : 

We, the undersigned. Members of the House of Repre¬ 
sentatives of the National Congress, do cordially endorse the 
opinion and approve the enterprise set forth in the forego¬ 
ing circular.” 

It was after his recommendation of this offensive publica¬ 
tion, and after his Rochester speech, that Senator Seward led 
all of his competitors on the first two ballots at the Chicago 
convention. 

In the midst of the excitement created by the circulation of 
Helper’s Book, came John Brown’s raid at Harper’s Ferry, 
undertaken for the avowed purpose of arming the slaves and 
exciting them to servile insurrection. 

Can any sane man, looking back dispassionately over these 
events, wonder for a moment that the slaveholders of the 
South became exasperated beyond endurance ? Or that they 
should feel that there was no longer any safety for themselves 
or their peculiar institution within the Union, after the 
new sectional party had obtained control of the govern¬ 
ment ? They had been educated in the belief that a State 
may lawfully secede from the Union ; and who shall say 
they had no provocation for the exercise of their supposed 
right to withdraw from the dominion of a sectional party 
that had evinced such manifest hostility to their favorite 
institution ? 

When the national convention of the new sectional party 
met at Chicago in May, 1860, for the purpose of putting a 
Presidential candidate in nomination, a platform of principles 


138 


SUPERIORITY OF 


was adopted, the fourth article of which is as follows, to 
wit: 

4. That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the 
States, and especially the right of each State to order and con¬ 
trol its own domestic institutions according to its own judg¬ 
ment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on 
which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric de¬ 
pends ; and we denounce the lawless invasion, by armed force, 
of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter under what 
pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.’^ 

In view of the fact that ten out of the twenty-two States 
represented in that convention then had Personal Liberty Bills 
on their statute books; that the favorites of the convention 
were the two distinguished party leaders who had won the 
party favor chiefly on account of their deliberate declarations 
that the States must all become free or slave; that sixty- 
eight members of congress identified with the new party had 
practically endorsed the extreme abolition measures proposed 
in Helperis Book ; that widespread sympathy had been openly 
expressed within the ranks of the party for the brutal leader 
of the murderous invasion of Virginia without color of law ; 
and that the tone of many of the influential organs of the party 
indicated a settled purpose to uproot slavery in the States 
where it existed as well as to arrest its spread into the Terri¬ 
tories, it is hot surprising that the Southern people regarded 
the fourth plank of the Chicago platform as a mere policy 
declaration, not expressive of the real sentiments of the Repub¬ 
lican party. At all events, they believed, or, at least, many of 
them professed the belief, and certainly not entirely without 
reason, that the supremacy of the Republican party in the con¬ 
trol of the government meant death to their cherished institu¬ 
tion of slavery. In their attempt to secure the recognition of 
the right they claimed for congressional protection of their 
peculiar property within the Territories opened up for settle¬ 
ment, they met with the intense opposition of the Northern 
Democrats, with few exceptions, as well as the Republicans. 


DEMOCRATIC AD3IINISTRATI0N. 


139 


When the Democratic National Convention met at Charles¬ 
ton, in April, 1860, to formulate a platform and nominate can¬ 
didates, it was found that it was utterly impossible for the 
Northern and Southern wings of the party to harmonize on 
the question of slavery in the Territories; the former abso¬ 
lutely refusing to sanction any interference by congress for or 
against slavery in any organized Territory, and the latter 
insisting upon a declaration of the right of all citizens to 
settle in any of the Territories, with their property, without 
their rights, either of person or property, being destroyed or 
impaired by territorial or congressional legislation ; and that 
it is the duty of the federal government to protect the rights 
of persons and property in the Territories, until any such 
Territory comes to form a State constitution for admission 
into the Union, at which time its population shall determine 
for themselves whether or not slavery shall exist in such pro¬ 
posed State. This irreconcilable difference between the two 
wings of the party led to a rupture of the convention, and 
to the nomination of Douglas by the Northern wing and of 
Breckinridge by the Southern wing of the party. Another 
convention of delegates representing for the most part the 
Southern people outside of the Democratic party, nominated 
Bell as its Presidential candidate. Inncoln was the nominee 
of the Kepublican party. 

Four Presidential candidates were thus placed in the field ; 
the supporters of Lincoln and Douglas being almost entirely 
confined to the free States, except that the latter carried Mis¬ 
souri ; and the supporters of Breckinridge and Bell being 
confined, for the most part, to the slave States. Lincoln 
received the entire electoral votes of all the free States ex¬ 
cept New Jersey, and four out of the seven electoral votes 
of that State. Bell received the electoral votes of Virginia, 
Kentucky and Maryland ; whilst Breckinridge received the 
electoral votes of all the other slave States, except Missouri, 
which cast its electoral votes for Douglas. In New Jersey, 
the supporters of Douglas, Breckinridge and Bell had formed 


140 


SUPERIORITY OF 


a fusion ticket, composed of three Douglas, two Bell, and 
two Breckinridge representatives ; but some of the support¬ 
ers of Douglas in that State refused to vote for the Breckin¬ 
ridge and Bell electors, whereby Douglas received three of the 
electoral votes of New Jersey and Lincoln four. The popu¬ 
lar vote for the respective candidates is given in Blame’s 
Book, Vol. I., pages 215-16, as follows, to wit: 


Of the popular vote, Lincoln received 1,866,452 ; Doug¬ 
las, 1,291,574; Breckinridge, 850,082; Bell, 646,124. Mr. 
Lincoln’s vote was wholly from the free States, except some 
26,000 cast for him in the five border slave States. In the 
other slave States his name was not presented as a candidate. 
Mr. Douglas received in the South about 163,000 votes. In 
the North the votes cast distinctively for the Breckinridge 
electoral ticket were less than 100,000, and distinctively for 
the Bell electoral ticket about 80,000. It was thus manifest 
that the two Northern Presidential candidates, Lincoln and 
Douglas, had absorbed almost the entire vote in the free States, 
and the two Southern Presidential candidates, Breckinridge 
and Bell, had absorbed almost the entire electoral vote in the 
slave States. The Northern candidates received popular sup¬ 
port in the South in about the same degree that the Southern 
candidates received popular support in the North. In truth 
as well as in appearance it was a sectional contest in which the 
North supported Northern candidates, and the South sup¬ 
ported Southern candidates. It was the first time in the his¬ 
tory of the government in which the President was chosen 
without electoral votes from both the free and slave States. 
This result was undoubtedly a source of weakness to Mr. Lin¬ 
coln,—weakness made apparent by his signal failure to obtain 
a popular majority. He had a large plurality, but the com¬ 
bined vote of his opponents was nearly a million greater than 
the vote which he received.” 


From the foregoing facts it appears that the Republican 
party was enabled to secure control of the government, for 
the first time, by reason of an unfortunate division in the 
ranks of its great rival, when its membership was confined 
almost exclusively to the Northern States, and fell far short 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


141 


of a majorit}" of the whole people. No party ever em¬ 
ployed the powers of the general government with such 
rigor, and resorted to so many and such desperate and 
corrupt devices to retain power, as this minority party 
which gained control of the government by an unfortunate 
accident. 


142 


SUPERIORITY OF 


CHAPTER XIIL 

DISUI^lOKISTS AND NULLIFIERS. 

The first organized attempt to resist the execution of a law 
of the United States was in Western Pennsylvania, and is 
known in history as the Whiskey Insurrection.” It con¬ 
sisted of an uprising of a portion of the inhabitants of a few 
neighboring counties west of the Alleghenies to resist the 
collection of the excise tax laid by congress upon distilled 
liquors. The revolt was suppressed in 1794 by the appearance 
of a federal army in the disturbed locality, and practically 
without bloodshed. This early trouble did not arise out of 
any action of the constituted authorities of the State, involv¬ 
ing any assertion of the right of a State or its people to nullify 
a federal law. It was simply a violent resistance of law by 
a number of discontented individuals who felt that it was 
oppressive and unjust. The authorities of the State furnished 
its quota of the troops called for by President Washington, and 
Governor Mifflin himself took the field at their head, under 
the chief command of Washington, who entered the State 
in person. There was no foundation in this local outbreak 
for the doctrine that a State may lawfully nullify a federal 
law. There is no doubt that the excise law bore hardly upon 
the people of the disturbed locality, and that the government 
derived no advantage from it commensurate with the discon¬ 
tent it excited ; and the odious measure was repealed by the 
first Democratic congress under the Presidency of Jefferson. 

A fruitless effort has been made to trace the origin of Nulli¬ 
fication to the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 
and 1799; but they will bear no such construction in the light 
of the circumstances which called them forth, and the action 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION, 


143 


taken in connection therewith. Mention of the Alien and 
Sedition Laws has been made in a preceding chapter. These 
unrepublican enactments of a Federalist congress were looked 
upon with alarm by the far-seeing anti-Federalist leaders, who 
were pow^erful in Virginia. The Virginia House of Delegates 
adopted a series of resolutions haying reference to these laws, 
which the Senate of that State agreed to on December 24th, 
1798. The resolutions were prepared by James Madison, and 
were sent together with an address to the respective governors 
of all the other States, with the request that they be com¬ 
municated to the several State legislatures for consideration. 
They were also forwarded to the senators and representatives 
of Virginia in congress ; but not to the President or any federal 
authority. They declared the warm attachment of the Assem¬ 
bly to the Union of the States, which it pledged its powers to 
maintain, and then proceeded to declare that the powers of 
the federal government were limited by the plain sense and 
intention of the constitution, and that in case of a deliberate, 
palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted 
by the said compact, the States, who are parties thereto, have 
the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose, for arresting 
the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their 
respective limits the authorities, rights and liberties apper¬ 
taining to them.” They then protested against the Alien and 
Sedition Laws as palpable and alarming infractions of the 
constitution,” and proceeded to specify wherein and why they 
were so, and appealed to the legislatures of the other States 
to concur with this commonwealth in declaring, as it does 
hereby declare, that the acts aforesaid are unconstitutional, and 
that the necessary and proper measures will be taken by each 
for co-operating with this State, in maintaining unimpaired 
the authorities, rights and liberties, reserved to the States, 
respectively, or to the people.” . 

The Kentucky resolutions of 1798, said to have been pre¬ 
pared by Jefferson, declare that the States are not united on 
the principle of unlimited submission to the general govern- 


144 


SUPERIORITY OF 


ment; that the general government is one of delegated powers 
for special purposes, and whenever it assumes undelegated 
powers its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force ; that 
the general government is not made the exclusive and final 
judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; ‘^but 
that, as in all other cases of compact among parties having no 
common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for 
itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of 
redress.’’ They then proceeded to specify at length the 
objections to the Alien and Sedition Laws, stating the neces¬ 
sary and logical effect of those laws to be that the general 
government may place any act they think proper on the list of 
crimes and punish it themselves, whether enumerated or not 
enumerated by the constitution as cognizable by them ; that 
they may transfer its cognizance to the President or any other 
person, who may himself be the accuser, counsel, judge and 
jury, whose suspicions may be the evidence, bis order the sen¬ 
tence, his oflScer the executioner, and his breast the sole record 
of the transaction;” that if these acts were permitted to 
stand as constitutional exercises of the legislative power, no 
rampart would remain against the passions and the power 
of a majority of congress to protect from like exportation, or 
other grievous punishment, the minority of the same body, 
the legislatures, judges, governors and counselors of the 
States, nor their other peaceable inhabitants who may venture 
to reclaim the constitutional rights and liberties of the States 
and people, or who, for other causes, good or bad, may be 
obnoxious to the view or marked by the suspicions of the 
President, or to be thought dangerous to his or their elections 
or other interests, public or personal; that the friendless alien 
has been selected as the safest subject of a first experiment, 
but the citizen will soon follow, or rather has already followed, 
for already has a sedition act marked him as a prey ; that 
these and successive acts of the same character, unless arrested 
on the threshold, may tend to drive these States into revolu¬ 
tion and blood, and will furnish new calumnies against republi- 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


145 


can governments, and new pretexts for those who wish it to 
be believed that man cannot be governed except by a rod of 
iron.” The resolutions concluded with an appeal that the 
co-States, recurring to their natural rights in cases not made 
federal, will concur in declaring these void and of no force, 
and will each unite with this Commonwealth in requesting 
their repeal at the next session of congress.” 

The States of Delaware, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New 
York, Connecticut, New Hampshire and Vermont, all being 
tlien under control of the Federalists, each responded by reso¬ 
lutions of one or both of the branches of its Legislature, 
condemning the sentiments expressed in the Virginia and 
Kentucky resolutions, approving the Alien and Sedition Laws 
as proper exercises of the legislative power of the federal gov¬ 
ernment, asserting that it belonged to the federal courts and 
not the States to pass upon the constitutionality of a law 
enacted by congress, and refusing to concur in the resolutions 
of Virginia and Kentucky or to join those States in attempt¬ 
ing to repeal the Alien and Sedition Laws. 

The Legislature of Kentucky responded in a second series 
of resolutions lamenting the spirit in which some of the sister 
States had met the ‘‘interesting subjects” decently and tem¬ 
perately “submitted to the discussion and judgment of our 
fellow-citizens throughout this Union ; ” reiterating the senti¬ 
ment of its first resolutions “that the several States who 
formed that instrument, being sovereign and independent, 
have the unquestionable right to judge of the infraction ; and 
that a nullification by these sovereignties of all unauthorized 
acts done under color of that instrument is the rightful 
remedy ; ” that while the commonwealth will bow to the laws 
of the Union, it would never cease to “oppose in a constitu¬ 
tional manner” every attempt to violate the constitutional 
compact; “and, finally, in order that no pretext or argu¬ 
ments may be drawn from a supposed acquiescence on the part 
of this commonwealth in the constitutionality of those laws, 
and be thereby used as precedents for similar future violations 
10 


146 


SUPERIORITY OF 


of the federal compact, this commonwealth does now enter 
against them its solemn protest/’ 

It will be observed by any considerate reader of the Virginia 
and Kentucky resolutions that they nowhere and in no way 
assert the right of a single State to nullify an act of congress 
or to peaceably secede from the IJnion ; on the contrary, they' 
were addressed to all of the States, inviting co-action in a con¬ 
stitutional manner with the complaining States for the over¬ 
throw of laws believed to be beyond the powers of congress to 
enact; and Art. V. of the constitution expressly provides a 
lawful and peaceful mode by which the initial proceedings to 
obtain redress may be instituted by the States, whenever the 
Legislatures of two-thirds of the seyeral States” shall unite in 
a call for a convention to amend the constitution. Jefferson 
always regarded this power of the States to enforce the call of 
a convention to amend the constitution as a highly important 
safeguard of the people, and a little reflection v/ill show that 
he did not estimate it too highly. The membership of the 
Senate changes slowly, and the States may be, and often are, 
so districted for congressional purposes that the majority of a 
State’s delegation in congress does not by any means represent 
the majority of its people. It is possible for congress to enact 
a law absolutely odious to nine-tenths of the population of 
every State, and yet it might be impossible to secure the repeal 
of such law through the action of both houses of congress for 
many years, or to secure a speedy decision of the Supreme 
Court declaring it unconstitutional. In fact, such odious law 
may be within the per view of the constitution. In such case, 
the outraged j^eople are not left powerless; they have a plain 
constitutional remedy. The Legislatures of two-thirds of the 
States may make application to congress to call a convention 
for proposing amendments, and it is made the imperative duty 
of congress to call such convention on such application of the 
States ; and that convention, composed of delegates chosen 
directly by the people of the several States, may utterly annul 
an act of congress by a constitutional amendment, which. 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


147 


when ratified by three-fourths of the States, shall be binding 
alike upon the President, congress, and all the courts. 

Such was the constitutional and perfectly proper remedy 
suggested by the Legislatures of Virginia and Kentucky for 
the nullification of the Alien and Sedition Laws which a 
Federalist congress would not repeal, and which there was 
no hope of a Supremo Court composed of Federalist judges 
declaring unconstitutional and void; and, for the purpose of 
securing the co-action of a sufficient number of their sister 
States, the States of Virginia and Kentucky formally and 
respectfully addressed all the other States in a constitutional 
manner. Such is the view expressed by Prof. Johnston, in 
his article in ^‘LaloFs Cyclopaedia,’’on the Kentucky and 
Virginia Eesolutions ; ” and he declares that it is fortified by 
the debates upon them in the Legislatures that adopted them, 
as well as by Mr. Madison’s report on the Virginia resolutions 
and on the replies of the Federalist States; and, still further, 
by subsequent correspondence of Mr. Jelferson upon the same 
subject. 

The Virginia and Kentucky resolutions contemplate a plain 
constitutional remedy, and give no support to the doctrine 
that any single State has the right to nullify the operation of 
a federal law within its boundaries. They failed to secure the 
concurrence of a sufficient number of States to join in a call 
for a constitutional convention; but they had the effect of 
awakening the people to an understanding of the dangerous 
tendency of the Federalist policy towards the establishment of 
a practical monarchy, and contributed largely towards the 
organization of the Democratic party. When the other States 
refused to join Virginia and Kentucky in a call for a conven¬ 
tion for the purpose of securing redress in a constitutional man¬ 
ner, neither of those States pretended to claim the right of 
itself, or in co-operation with another State, to nullify the 
odious laws, but each dutifully resolved, in the language of 
the second series of Kentucky resolutions, to ^^bowtothe 
laws of the IJnion,” and bear with the obnoxious measures 


148 


SUPERIORITY OF 


until they could be repealed in a constitutional manner. The 
Sedition Law, as shown in a former chapter, expired by its 
own provisions with the close of President Adams’s administra¬ 
tion ; and all that was objectionable in the Alien Laws was 
repealed by the first Democratic Congress. 

So far as the author has learned the first assertion of the 
right of a State to withdraw from the Union, presented in 
any serious and public form, was in a series of communications 
published in the Connecticut Courant m 1795. It was in¬ 
sisted in these letters that there can be no safety to the 
Northern States without a separation from the confederacy,” 
and the ‘^impossibility of union for any long period in the 
future” was urged by the correspondent. It is worthy of 
observation that the people of all sections of the country at 
that date, being the generation that adopted the constitution, 
almost invariably spoke and wrote of the Union of the States 
as a “confederacy,” and of the constitution as the federal 
“compact” between the States. 

In 1803, “Tucker’s Blackstone” was published in Virginia, 
in which the doctrine was taught that, notwithstanding the 
ratification of the federal constitution by the States, “ each is 
still a perfect State, still sovereign, still independent, and still 
capable, should the occasion require, to resume the exercise 
of its functions, as such, to the most unlimited extent. But, 
until the time shall arrive when the occasion requires a 
resumption of the rights of sovereignty by the several States 
(and far be that period removed when it shall happen), the 
exercise of the right of sovereignty by the States individu¬ 
ally is wholly suspended or discontinued, in the cases before 
mentioned ; nor can that suspension ever be removed, so long 
as the present constitution remains unchanged, but by the 
dissolution of the bonds of union : an event which no good 
citizen can wish, and which no good or wise administration 
will ever hazard.” How the “dissolution of the bonds of 
union ” may be effected is not explained : whether by a State 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


149 


peaceably withdrawing at its own option, or by consent of all 
the other States, or by the exercise of the right of revolution 
belonging, as everybody admits, to any community whose 
people are willing to risk tlie consequences of such remedy. 
The doctrine of suspended sovereignty in the State, as a 
member of the Union, has no substantial foundation. The 
sovereignty of a State is not simj^ly suspended, but is absolutely 
and irrevocably surrendered to the federal government in so 
far as the grants contained in the constitution extend, and 
with respect to all powers not delegated to the federal govern¬ 
ment by the constitution, each State continues to be sovereign 
within its own boundaries. The views of Mr. Tucker were 
not provoked by any emergency calling for their practical 
application, and consisted simply of a disquisition upon the 
relation of the States to the general government. 

The first exhibition of serious hostility to the Union, and 
to the lawful authority of the federal government, manifested 
itself in the New England States at the time of the acquisition 
of Louisiana, and continued until after the close of the war of 
1812. Mention has been made in a former chapter of the fact 
that John Quincy Adams made a communication to President 
Jefferson of the purpose of the New England Federalists to 
resist the embargo if it should be much longer continued. 
Similar information was given to the President by the Hon. 
Joseph Story, then a Democratic member of congress from 
Massachusetts, and afterwards one of the Justices of the 
Supreme Court of the United States. The nature of the in¬ 
formation so given is stated in an article published in the 
National Intelligencer of October 21st, 1828, by the authority 
of Mr. Adams, when he was a candidate for President. Tlie 
article so published, and republished in ^‘Niles’s Eegister,’’ 
Vol. 35, page 138, is as follows, to wit: 

At the session of congress which commenced in Novem¬ 
ber, 1808, Mr. Adams was a private citizen, residing at Boston. 
The embargo was still in force, operating with extreme pres- 


150 


SUPERIORITY OF 


sure upon the interests of the people, and was viewed as a 
most effective instrument by the party prevailing in the State 
against the administration of Mr. Jefferson. The people were 
constantly instigated to forcible resistance against it, and 
juries after juries acquitted the violators of it, upon the ground 
that it was unconstitutional, assumed in the face of a solemn 
decision of the District Court of the United States. A sepa¬ 
ration of the Union was openly stimulated in the public prints, 
and a convention of delegates of the New England States, to 
meet at New Haven, was intended and proposed. 

^^Mr. Giles, and several other members of congress, during 
this session, wrote to Mr. Adams contidential letters, informing 
him of the various measures proposed as reinforcements or 
substitutes for the embargo, and soliciting his opinions upon 
the subject. He answered these letters with frankness, and in 
confidence. He earnestly recommended the substitution of 
the non-intercourse for the embargo ; and, in giving his rea¬ 
sons for this preference, was necessarily led to enlarge upon 
the views and purposes of certain leaders of the party which 
had the management of the State Legislature in their hands. 
He urged that a continuance of the embargo much longer 
would certainly be met by forcible resistance, supported by 
the Legislature, and probably by the judiciary of the State. 
That to quell that resistance, if force should be resorted to 
by the government, it would produce a civil war ; and that in 
that event, he had no doubt the leaders of the party would 
secure the co-operation with them of Great Britain. That 
their object was, and had been for several years, a dissolution 
of the Union and the establishment of a separate confederation, 
he knew from unequivocal evidence, although not provable in 
a court of law ; and that, in the case of a civil war, the aid of 
Great Britain to effect that purpose would be as surely resorted 
to, as it would be indispensably necessary to the design. That 
these letters to Mr. Giles were by him communicated to Mr. 
Jefferson, Mr. Adams believes. He believes, likewise, that 
other letters from him to other members of congress, written 
during the same session and upon the same subject, were 
also communicated to him. In one of the letters to Mr. 
Giles he repeated the assurance which he had verbally 
given him during the preceding session of congress, that he 
had for his support of Mr. Jefferson’s administration no 
personal or interested motive, and no favor to ask of him 
whatever.” 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


151 


In November, 1828, a number of persons, who had been 
leading Federalists of Massachusetts at the period covered by 
the statement so publislied, demanded of President Adams 
that he would prove his charges, which he declined to do at 
that time. They denied all knowledge of any Federalist design, 
in 1808, ‘Ho produce a dissolution of the Union, or the estab¬ 
lishment of a separate confederacy/^ However that may have 
been, it is well established that very little respect was paid to 
the federal authority in that section. Prof. Johnston, in his 
article on “Embargo,” in “Lalor’s Cyclopaedia,^’ says that 
the New England States passed resolutions condemning the 
embargo, and that, 

“Thus countenanced and emboldened. State judges took 
an attitude consistently hostile to the embargo, and the 
federal courts in New England seldom succeeded in finding 
juries which would convict even for the most flagrant viola¬ 
tions of its provisions. Smugglers crossed and recrossed the 
Canada border almost in organized armies, and defied federal 
marshals.” 

British sympathy was exhibited by a modification of the 
Orders of Council forbidding British cruisers to interfere with 
American vessels bound to British colonies. Many of the 
government collectors resigned, and others, who made seizures, 
were subjected to actions for damages in the State courts. 
The denial of those accused of hostile designs against the 
Union, made twenty years after the event, when the conduct 
of the New England Federalists had become odious in the 
sight of the people, never was regarded as having much 
weight against the explicit statements of President Adams 
and Judge Story; especially in view of what occurred after 
the embargo had been removed. In 1811, when the bill was 
before congress to enable the Territory of Louisiana (Orleans) 
to form a constitution preparatory to admission into the 
Union as a State, Josiah Quincy^ ^ inember from Massa¬ 
chusetts, in a speech ip coPgreas, declared ; 

If this bill passes, it is my deliberate opinion that it is 


152 


SUPERIORITY OF 


virtually a dissolution of the Union; that it will free the 
States from their moral obligation, and, as it will be the right 
of all, so it will be the duty of some, definitely to prepare for 
a separation, amicably if they can, violently if they must/’ 

He argued that it was unconstitutional to admit a State 
composed of territory that was outside of the Union when the 
constitution was adopted, and that it would destroy the meas¬ 
ure of influence which each State enjoyed when it entered 
the Union, and on the faith of which it ratified the consti¬ 
tution. He inquired : Is there a moral principle of public 
law better settled, or more conformable to the j^lainest sug¬ 
gestions of reason, than that the violation of a contract by 
one of the parties may be considered as exempting the other 
from its obligations ?” 

The act of congress, passed the following year, declaring 
war against Great Britain, brought out further exhibitions of 
hostility to the government amongst the Federalists of New 
England, as well as their disposition to rely on the enemy 
for aid. Prior to the declaration of war President Madison 
laid before congress certain documents which had been com¬ 
municated to the executive by John Henry, a native of Ire¬ 
land, who alleged that he had been employed as a secret agent 
of the British government, in the New England States, in 
intrigues with the disaffected, for the purpose of bringing 
about resistance to the laws, and eventually, in concert with 
a British force, of destroying the Union, and forming the 
eastern part thereof into a political connection Avith Great 
Britain.” It is certain that he was in NeAV England in 1809, 
and that he wrote to his employers in Canada in March of 
that year reporting progress, and stating that he had ample 
means of information to enable him to judge of the proper 
time for offering the co-operation of Great Britain. It Avill 
be remembered that the repeal of the embargo took effect 
March 15th, 1809, resulting in an abatement of Federalist 
hostility to the government; and, on the 25th of May fol¬ 
lowing, Henry wrote to his principals at Quebec rliat it would 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


153 


be nnavailing, in the existing state of things, to attempt to 
carry into effect the original purposes of his mission. It is 
but fair to state that New England people who admitted their 
knowledge of Henry’s presence amongst them, denied any 
knowledge that he was a British agent; and the British 
minister at AVashington solemnly disclaimed any knowledge 
whatever of Henry's alleged mission. However, the congres¬ 
sional committee on foreign relations, to which the Henry 
documents were referred, after taking testimony and making 
investigation, reported to the House that there had been pre¬ 
sented to the committee conclusive evidence that the British 
government, at a period of peace, and during the most friendly 
professions, have been deliberately and perfidiously pursuing 
measures to divide these States, and to involve our citizens in 
all the guilt of treason, and the horrors of a civil war.” 

When the act declaring war was passed by congress, the 
Federalist members issued an address strongly condemning 
the war, and alleging that the declaration of war was only 
designed by American Jacobins to draw off by a side attack 
the energies of Great Britain from its struggle with France.” 
In Prof. Johnston’s article on The Hartford Convention,” 
published in ^^Lalor’s Cyclopaedia,” is the following : 

^^When summoned, June 1‘2, to supply detachments of 
militia for garrison duty, the governors of Massachusetts and 
Connecticut denied the power of the President to make such 
a draft except to execute the laws, suppress insurrections, or 
repel invasions. In this denial the Council and Legislature of 
Connecticut joined, and the popular approval of their action 
was shown by the election, immediately after, of 1C3 Federal¬ 
ists to 36 Democrats in the House. The difficulty was in part 
removed by allowing the militia to remain under its State 
officers, and by the general conciliatory measures of the federal 
government. Nevertheless the New England States continued 
in every debatable point to adopt the very strictest construc¬ 
tion of the federal government’s constitutional powers, and to 
do so in language which showed plainly their continued dis¬ 
like for the war ; and their action seemed to meet popular 
approval. In the spring of 1813 the Federalists showed a 


154 


SUPERIORITY OF 


clear majority in every State election in Hew England. Their 
Massachusetts majority rose from 1,370 in 1812 to 13,974 ; in 
Connecticut and Ehode Island the Democratic vote was much 
decreased ; and even the hitherto doubtful Democratic States, 
New Hampshire and Vermont, were carried by the Federalists. 
In the Thirteenth Congress, which met May 24th, the House 
contained 68 peace to 112 war members, the New York delega¬ 
tion having become largely Federalist. Stimulated by success 
the party took a higher tone. The Massachusetts Legislature 
declared the whole war ^ impolitic and unjust,’ and refused 
votes of thanks for naval victories, on the ground ‘ that, in a 
war like the present, waged without justifiable cause, and 
prosecuted in a manner indicating that conquest and ambition 
were its real motives, it was not becoming a moral and relig¬ 
ious people to express any approbation of military and naval 
exploits not immediately connected with the defense of our 
seacoast and soil.’ The State officers and leading Federalists 
even refused to attend the public funeral of Captain Lawrence 
of the Chesapeake. In November the newly elected Federal¬ 
ist governor of Vermont recalled a brigade of militia which 
his Democratic predecessor had ordered out for garrison duty, 
and, when a proposition was made in congress to direct the 
attorney-general to prosecute the governor, a counter proposi¬ 
tion was at once brought into the Massachusetts Senate to aid 
Vermont with the whole power of the State. New England, 
in short, presented a united Federalist front of opposition to 
the warP 

The British government attested its sympathy with the 
New England Federalists, by excepting Ehode Island, Massa¬ 
chusetts and New Hampshire, the seaboard States, from the 
blockade that, on March 20th, 1813, was declared all along 
the coast of the United States. Signals were given to the 
British squadron, from which the disaffected inhabitants were 
given the name of Blue-light Federalists.” In 1814, the 
British government was enabled to bring into the conflict large 
bodies of veterans who had served in the wars against Napo¬ 
leon, and a bill was introduced into the United States Senate 
authorizing recruiting officers to enlist minors above eighteen, 
regardless of the consent of parents. The Legislature of Con¬ 
necticut, being then in session, passed resolutions almost unan- 


DEMOCRATIC AD^IINISTRATION, 


155 


imously, expressing the determination to resist this measure 
if it should become a law, and ordering the governor to call a 
special session in event of the passage of the proposed bill by 
congress. In October, 1814, the Legislature of Massacliusetts 
adopted a proposal for a convention of the New England 
States, whicli was promptly accepted by the Legislatures of 
Ehode Island and Connecticut. Says Prof. Johnston : 

In New Hampshire, where the Council was Democratic, 
and in Vermont, where the successful fight at Plattsburgh had 
awakened a new war feeling, the Federalists did not venture 
any State action on the proposal; but the Federalist counties 
of Cheshire, Grafton and Coos, in New Hampshire, and Wind¬ 
ham, in Vermont, appointed delegates by town meetings.” 

The convention met at Hartford, December 15th, 1814, and 
continued in secret session until January 5th, 1815, during 
which time it adopted a report to the Legislatures of the States 
represented, formulating a statement of grievances and recom¬ 
mending certain amendments to the constitution and certain 
legislation by congress, and providing for a future meeting in 
Boston, in the event of their recommendations being disre¬ 
garded. Prof. Johnston says : 

The report denied any present intention to dissolve the 
Union, and admitted that if a dissolution should be necessary, 
‘ by reason of the multiplied abuses of bad administrations, it 
should, if possible^ be the work of peaceable times and deliber¬ 
ate consent.’ ” 

Within three days after the adjournment of this extraordi¬ 
nary convention Gen. Jackson gained his splendid victory over 
the British at New Orleans, and the return of peace arrested 
the course of the New England Federalists in their career of 
hostility to the federal government, at a period when it was 
engaged in the ‘^Second War of Independence.” 

The next attempt to practically assert the right of a State 
to disregard the authority of the federal government was made 
in South Carolina. The Tariff Act of 1828 was more strongly 
protective than that of 1824. It levied duties on some articles 


156 


SUPERIORITY OF 


at the rate of 30 per cent. In 1831 the public debt was 
less than $40,000,000 ; the total ordinary expenses of the 
government less than $14,000,000, and the revenue derived 
from customs nearly $25,000,000. In July of that year John 
C. Calhoun published a treatise on nullification in a South 
Carolina newspaper, in which he advocated the right of a 
State to nullify an act of congress, and the expediency of 
exercising the alleged right with respect to the tariff Act of 
1828, unless congress should satisfactorily modify the law at 
its next session. The next session of congress did modify the 
law by the Act of July 14, 1832, whereby the 30 per cent, 
duties were reduced to 25 per cent. This revision of the law 
was not satisfactory to Calhoun and his followers, and on 
October 22d the Legislature of South Carolina met, pursu¬ 
ant to a call of the governor, and passed an act calling a State 
convention, which met in November and j^assed an ordinance 
declaring the Tariff Acts of 1828 and 1832 to be null, void, and 
no law, nor binding upon the State, its officers or citizens, 
and forbidding the payment of the duties thereby levied after 
February 1st, 1833 ; and concluded with a warning that in 
case of any attempt on the part of the general government to 
enforce the law by the army and navy, or by closing the 
ports of the State, the State would no longer consider itself a 
member of the Union, and would proceed to organize a sep¬ 
arate government. There was a considerable anti-nullifica¬ 
tion party in the State, and the federal officers continued to 
perform their duties. In November, President Jackson in¬ 
structed the collector at Charleston to provide necessary boats 
and inspectors, to seize every vessel entering the port and hold 
it in custody until the duties were paid, to defend such vessel 
against any forcible attempt of the State authorities, and to 
disregard any State process designed to take such vessel from 
his custody. He issued his famous Proclamation appealing 
to the people of South Carolina to annul the disorganiz¬ 
ing edict of its convention,” announciug his intention to en¬ 
force the laws of the Union, and appealing to his fellow conn- 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


157 


trymen to sustain him. When congress assembled. President 
Jackson sent in a message giving a full account of the proceed¬ 
ings in South Carolina, making a powerful argument against 
the right of nullification, and laying the whole matter before 
them for action. A bill known as the Force Bill was debated 
and passed, but the famous Compromise Tariff Act of 1833 was 
also passed, which was satisfactory to Mr. Calhoun and his 
followers, and the two acts were presented to President Jack- 
son the same day, and approved by him at the same time, 
being March 2d, 1833. On March 16th the South Carolina 
convention met and annulled the nullification ordinance, and 
so the difficulty was settled. 

From that time forward the doctrine of the right of a State 
to secede from the Union w'as zealously taught in the South, 
and the people of that section were educated up to the belief 
that as citizens they owed their highest duty to the authori¬ 
ties' of their respective States, and not to the general govern¬ 
ment. The belief in this doctrine was not confined to the 
people of the South. As early as 1825 the right of a State to 
secede from the federal Union was ably maintained by Mr. 
William"Eawle, a prominent member of the Philadelphia bar, 
in Chapter X'XIII. of his work, entitled View of the Con¬ 
stitution of the United States;’’ and in 1839 John Quincy 
Adams advocated the right, while he deprecated its exercise, 
in his Discourse delivered before the New York Historical 
Society;^’^ Uo attempt to exercise the supposed right, in any 
section of the Union, was ever made until after the election 
of Mr. Lincoln to the Presidency in 1860. 

The Fugitive Slave Law, like the Embargo Act, was practi¬ 
cally nullified by many of the people of some of the free States. 
After the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States 
in the case of Prigg vs. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 
in 1842, we are informed by the biographer of Mr. Justice 
Story, who delivered the majority opinion of the Court, that 
‘Hhe Act of 1793 was a dead letter in the free States.” The 


158 


SUPERIORITY OF 


resistance of this law was not confined to dissatisfied indi¬ 
viduals, as in the case of the “Whiskey Insurrection.” On 
the contrary, direct action was taken by the legislative authori¬ 
ties of ten of the Northern States, which practically provided 
for the nullification of the Fugitive Slave Law. These States 
were Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Ehode Island, Con¬ 
necticut, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, AVisconsin and Kan¬ 
sas ; and the acts passed in these States were known as Personal 
Liberty Bills. Of these acts Prof. Johnston says : 

“ These laws generally prohibited the use of the State’s jails 
for detaining fugitives ; provided State officers, under various 
names, throughout the State, to act as counsel for persons 
alleged to be fugitives ; secured to all such persons the benefit 
of habeas corpus and trial by jury; required the identity of 
the fugitive to be proved by two witnesses; forbade State 
judges and officers to issue writs or give any assistance to the 
claimant; and imposed a heavy fine and imprisonment for the 
crime of forcibly seizing or representing as a slave any free 
person with intent to reduce him to slavery.” 

The same author further says : 

The writer’s own belief that the obligation of rendition 
was upon the States alone, has prevented him from classing 
the Personal Liberty Laws under nullification. If, however, 
the obligation was really federal, they were certainly nullitica- 
tions, though not to the same degree as that of South Caro¬ 
lina ; for the latter absolutely prohibited the execution of the 
tmiff act, while the former only impeded the return of fugi¬ 
tive slaves. The principle, however, is the same.” 

That the obligation of rendition was federal and not State, 
as Prof. Johnston believes, was determined by more than one 
decision of the Supreme Court, including the Prigg case, 
already mentioned. 

The Disunion outbreak in the South in 1861 is considered 
in another cliapter. All of the slave States adopted ordinances 
of secession, except Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Mis¬ 
souri. 

It will be seen from the facts recited in this chapter that 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION, 


159 


the operation of sentiments of disunion and nullification have 
not been confined to the people of the Southern States, and 
that the inhabitants of all sections have shown a disposition 
to magnify the reserved rights of the States whenever they 
feel themselves aggrieved by the action of the federal govern¬ 
ment. It will not do, in the light of this record, for the 
people of the J^orth, and especially its anti-Democratic popu¬ 
lation, to set up any pretentious claims of superior loyalty to 
the Union, or peculiar respect for the authority of the federal 
government. However, the chief purpose of the author, in 
introducing the facts contained in this chapter, is to enable 
the reader to better understand the enormity of the measures 
put in execution against Democrats who opposed and pro¬ 
tested against the arbitrary and monarchical proceedings of 
the first Eepublican administration. 


160 


SUPERIORITY OF 


CHAPTEE XIV. 

ATTITUDE OE THE DEMOCEATTC PARTY TOWARDS THE 
REBELLIOIT. 

It has become a common practice with many of the manu¬ 
facturers of Eepublican sentiment to charge the Democratic 
party with responsibility for the great Southern Eebellion, 
and all the sacrifices made and burdens incurred in its sup¬ 
pression. A more unjust, and at the same time ungrateful, 
charge could hardly be made. The public debt is frequently 
referred to in Eepublican newspapers, in campaign documents, 
on the stump, and in the partisan debates in congress, as 
burden incurred in suppressing a Democratic Eebellion;” 
and the promulgators of such slander glibly credit the Eepub¬ 
lican party with the suppression of the Eebellion. Even as 
distinguished a member of the party as the Hon. George S. 
Boutwell, in his little campaign-book entitled Why I am a 
Eepublican,” has the audacity to say : 

‘^The Union was dismembered and surrendered by the 
Democratic party. 

The Union was re-established by the Eepublican party.” 

This reckless assertion is followed, at page 32 of his book, 
with a totally inconsistent statement; where, referring to 
President Buchanan’s opinion that no power is delegated to 
the federal government to coerce a State, he says : 

His qualified position was sustained apparently by all the 
Democratic voters in the free States who had not supported 
Mr. Douglas.'’^ 

When it is remembered that Mr. Douglas was supported by 
more than ten voters for every one who supported Breckin- 


DEMOCRATIC AD3nNISTRAT10N. 


161 


ridge in the free States, the inconsistency of Mr. Boutwell’s 
two statements becomes apparent. As a matter of fact, the 
ISTorthern supporters of Mr. Breckinridge were nearly all 
actively hostile to the Eebellion, as were a considerable fol¬ 
lowing of such conspicuous Southern leaders as Andrew 
Johnson of Tennessee and Joseph Holt of Kentucky. In the 
Korth, the supporters of Breckinridge consisted mainly of the 
adherents of President Buchanan in his strife with Senator 
Douglas. Their leaders were Butler of Massachusetts, Dix 
and Dickinson of Kew York, and Judge Black of Pennsyl¬ 
vania; all of whom were aggressively hostile to all schemes of 
disunion. It was as a member of Buchanan’s cabinet that 
Gen. Dix sent out his famous message, saying : ‘‘li any man 
attempts to haul down the American flag, shoot him on the 
spot.” It was a matter of common remark, at the time, that 
the ‘MA^ar Democrats,” as they were called, were composed of 
a larger proportion of the followers of Breckinridge than of 
Douglas, being, as already explained, those Democrats who 
abandoned their party organization—some temporarily, some 
permanently—and became politically identified with the Re¬ 
publicans ; such as Butler, Logan, Stanton, Holt and John¬ 
son. The following is Mr. Blaine’s testimony, as found at 
page 297, Vol. I., of his book : 

The effect of the assault on Sumter and the lowering of 
the National flag to the forces of the Confederacy, acted upon 
the North as an inspiration, consolidating public sentiment, 
dissipating all differences, bringing the whole people to an 
instant and unanimous determination to avenge the insult and 
re-establish the authority of the Union. Yesterday there had 
been doubt and despondency; to-day had come assurance and 
confidence. Yesterday there had been division ; to-day there 
was unity. . . . 

It is due to the Democracy of the North to say, that how¬ 
ever strongly they had opposed the election of Mr. Lincoln, 
and however hostile they had been to the principles he 
represented, the mass of the party responded with noble 
enthusiasm and with patriotic fidelity to the Union. Their 
great leader. Senator Douglas, set a worthy example by 
11 


162 


SUPERIORITY OF 


promptly waiting on the President, and expressing his deepest 
sympathy and his earnest co-operation in the struggle for the 
life of the nation. . . . 

From the hour of actual danger, Mr. Douglas had spoken 
no partisan word, had known no partisan divisions, had 
labored only for the government of the nation, had looked 
only to its safety and its honor. He had a larger following 
than any other party leader of his day. Nearly a million and 
a half of men believed in his principles, were devoted to him 
personally, trusted him implicitly. . . . When he returned 
to his State, after the firing on Sumter, the Eepublican Legis¬ 
lature of Illinois received him with a display of feeling as pro¬ 
found as that with which they would have welcomed Mr. 
Lincoln. His address on that memorable occasion was worthy 
of the loftiest patriot, and was of inestimable value to the 
cause of the Union. Perhaps no word spoken carried con¬ 
fidence to more hearts or gave greater strength to the national 
cause.” 


It is undoubtedly true that the Breckinridge wing of the 
Democratic party in the South is properly chargeable with a 
large share of responsibility for the Rebellion ; but they were 
not the only responsible parties. On page 310-11, Mr. Blaine 
says, referring to Mr. Bell: 

‘^The vote which he had received in the South at the 
Presidential election was very nearly as large as that given to 
Breckinridge. The vote of Bell and Douglas united exceeded 
that given to Breckinridge in the slave States by more than a 
hundred thousand. The popular judgment in the North had 
been that the Disunion element in the South was massed in sup¬ 
port of Breckinridge, and that all who preferred the candidacy 
of Bell or of Douglas might be relied upon in the supreme 
crisis as friends of the Union. . . . 

A large share of the responsibility for the dangerous 
development of the Rebellion must therefore be attributed to 
John Bell and his half million Southern supporters, who w^ere 
all of the old Whig party. At the critical moment they 
signally failed to vindicate the principles upon which they had 
appealed in the preceding canvass for popular support. They 
are not justly chargeable with original Disunion proclivities. 
Sentiments of that kind had been consolidated in the Breckin- 


DEMOCRATIC AD2IINISTRATI0N, 


163 


ridge party. But they are responsible for permitting a party 
whose rank and file did not outnumber their own to lead cap¬ 
tive the public opinion of the South,” etc. 

From this testimony of Mr. Blaine, the utmost that can be 
said is that the leaders in the Disunion movement after the 
Presidential election of 1860 were Breckinridge Democrats, 
who constituted less than one-half of the voting population of 
the slave States, and that the movement was acquiesced in by 
members of all parties in the disaffected section. If there 
were no Eepublicans in the movement, it was because that 
party had no following in. those States. The slave States, in 
which Mr. Lincoln received only 46,000 votes, furnished 329,- 
998 soldiers to the Union army, exclusive of colored troops, 
and thousands upon thousands of the soldiers furnished by 
the Northern States were Democrats, who fought side by side 
with their Eepublican neighbors in suppressing the rebellion. 
In referring to the great victory at Fort Donelson, Mr. Blaine 
says, at page 357 : 

The moral force of the victory was increased by the fact 
that so large a proportion of these prominent officers had been, 
like General Grant, connected with the Democratic party,— 
thus adding demonstration to assurance that it was an upris¬ 
ing of a people in defense of their government, and not merely 
the work of a political party seeking to extirpate slavery.” 

It is not the purpose of the author to detract one iota from 
the merits of the Eepublican soldiers and officers who gallantly 
did their full share in putting down the rebellion and over¬ 
throwing the Southern Confederacy ; but simply to introduce 
the testimony of the most eminent and best-informed leader 
of the Eepublican party, in answer to the false claim made so 
frequently by smaller men that the Democrats were rebels, 
and that the Eepublican party is entitled to the whole credit 
of overthrowing the Southern Confederacy, and restoring the 
Union. 

So much has been said and written in criticism, and even 
rank abuse, of President Buchanan, on account of his course 


164 


SUPERIORITY OF 


towards the Southern Disunionists, that it is nothing beyond 
an act of simple justice to the memory of the great Pennsyl¬ 
vania statesman, and to the party he represented, to consider 
his conduct in the spirit of fairness. His policy has been gen¬ 
erally denounced as weak and temporizing, and some rabid 
partisans have even gone so far as to question his patriotism. 
A fair examination will reveal the fact that there was no essen¬ 
tial difference between the policies of Buchanan and Lincoln, 
in their treatment of the Southern Disunionists, up until the 
time when the firing upon Fort Sumter forced the latter to 
call for troops to repel the armed assault upon the govern¬ 
ment ; and that they both pursued practically the same con¬ 
ciliatory line of 23olicy that Jefferson and Madison adopted 
with the Disunionists of New England, and that Jackson 
pursued towards the Nullifiers of South Carolina. 

It has been generally conceded by intelligent people who 
make any just claim to fairness, that there was nothing blame¬ 
worthy in the course pursued by President Buchanan after 
the reorganization of his cabinet. With the exception of a 
few irrepressible disturbers, the almost uniform sentiment of 
the Northern people of all parties, during the early months of 
1861, was against any policy likely to result in war. Eeferring 
to that period, and to the resolution passed by the Legislature 
of Massachusetts, on January 23d, 1861, tendering the Presi¬ 
dent aid in men and money to maintain the authority of the 
government, Mr. Blaine says, at page 239 : 

The Massachusetts Legislature was radically Eepublican 
in both branches, and even in making a reference to ^ men 
and money’ as requisite to maintain the Union, they had gone 
further than the public sentiment at that time approved. 
Coercive measures avere generally condemned.’^ 

Again, at page 237 : 

If the history of successive administrations from the 
origin of the government be closely studied, it will be found 
that the reorganized cabinet of President Buchanan must 
take rank as one of exceptional ability. For the remaining 


DE3I0CRATIG ADMINISTRATION. 


165 


two months of Mr. Buchanan’s administration the destinies of 
the country were in the keeping of these constitutional 
advisers. If in any respect they failed to come to the stand¬ 
ard of a loyalty that was quickened by subsequent develop¬ 
ments, they no doubt fairly represented the demand of the 
Northern States at the time. There teas everywhere the most 
earnest^ desire to avert a couflicty and an unwillingness to 
recognize the possibility of actual tear. The majority of the 
Republican party in both branches of congress was not ad¬ 
vocating a more decided or more aggressive course with the 
South, during the months of January and February, than the 
cabinet, wi th Judge Black at its head, was pursuing.” 

Having said this much in justice to President Buchanan 
and his cabinet, Mr. Blaine continues to say : 

‘^The time for executive acts of a more pronounced charac¬ 
ter was directly after the Presidential election, when the first 
symptoms of resistance to national authority were visible in 
the South. . . . The measures which might have secured 
repression in November would only have produced explosion 
in January.” 

Now, let us consider what measures Mr. Buchanan could 
have lawfully employed in November, which he failed to use 
in repression of incipient rebellion. What was the situation, 
and wherein did he fail to meet it with wisdom and patriot¬ 
ism ? What would Lincoln or Jackson have done in Novem¬ 
ber or December, 1860, that Buchanan failed to do ? 

During the month of November, not a single act was done 
in any Southern State which called for executive acts ” of a 
‘^pronounced character,” or any other character. On No¬ 
vember 6th, 1860, the Legislature of South Carolina was in 
session for the purpose of choosing Presidential electors, that 
State never having adopted the popular vote system of choos¬ 
ing electors until after the war (1868). That body remained 
in session until after it was certainly known that the Presi¬ 
dential election had resulted in favor of Mr. Lincoln, when it 
made provision for a State convention to be held at Columbia 
on December 17th, 1860. All this was perfectly lawful, and 


166 


SUPERIORITY OF 


entirely beyond any sort of control on the part of any Presi¬ 
dent. On November 18th, 1860, the Legislature of Georgia 
provided for a State convention to be held on the 17th of 
January, 1861 ; and, on December 1st, 1860, the Florida 
Legislature passed a bill calling a State convention to meet 
January 3d, 1801. These were the only acts done in any of 
the Southern States before the meeting of congress on Decem¬ 
ber 3d, 1860; and no sane person will i^retend that such acts 
warranted any sort of repressive measures on the part of Presi¬ 
dent Buchanan. He had no sort of constitutional power to 
interfere in any way with the acts of those Legislatures in 
calling State conventions. Not a single cent’s worth of the 
government property had then been seized, or interfered with 
in any way, in any Southern State; not a single federal law 
bad been in any way violated ; the revenue was regularly 
collected at the several custom-houses; and there had been 
no sort of disturbance that could in any way justify any man¬ 
ner of interference by the President or congress. Every fed¬ 
eral officer in the South was performing his official duties as 
usual, except that the District Judge, District Attorney and 
Marshal of the District of South Carolina had resigned. 
When congress met, December 3d, 1860, every State was fully 
represented in both branches, except South Carolina, whose 
senators had resigned. 

Certainly, up until that date no just fault can be found 
with President Buchanan on account of his omission to resort 
to repressive measures ; he had neither occasion nor authority 
to interfere with anything that had been done in any Southern 
State. 

Such was the situation, when President Buchanan submitted 
his annual message to congress on December 3d, 1860. In 
that message, which has been subjected to severe criticism, he 
discussed at length the character and causes of the discontent 
in the Southern States, and, while he forcibly argued that it 
was the duty of the several Northern States to repeal their 
personal liberty bills and cease their aggi’essions upon slavery 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


1G7 


where it existed, he addressed himself in strong terms to the 
Southern people in combating the xiews of some of their 
leaders, and proceeded to argue forcibly that they had been 
subjected to no such grievances as would at all justify revolu¬ 
tionary measures. He combated with great force the claim 
that any State possessed the right to peaceably secede from 
the Union, and declared in plain terms that secession is 
neither more nor less than revolution ; it may or it may not 
be a justifiable revolution, but still it is revolution.’’ 

Having thus plainly urged upon the Northern people that 
they were not free from fault in the conditions then existing, 
and having warned the Southern people that they had no 
right to withdraw from the Union peaceably, and no cause 
for revolution, he proceeded to call the attention of congress 
to the fact that there was no law upon the statute book cloth¬ 
ing the President with sufficient authority to meet the emer¬ 
gency then manifestly approaching; that the Acts of Con¬ 
gress of February 28th, 1795, and March 3d, 1807, extend no 
further than to authorize the President, after he shall have 
ascertained that the marshal, with his posse comitatus, is un¬ 
able to execute civil or criminal process in any particular case, 
to call forth the militia and employ the army and navy to aid 
him in performing this service, having first by proclamation 
commanded the insurgents ^to disperse and retire peaceably 
to their respective abodes within a reasonable time.’ This 
duty cannot by possibility be performed in a State where no 
judicial authority exists to issue process, and where there is 
no marshal to execute it, and where, even if there were such 
an officer, the entire population would constitute one solid 
combination to resist him.” 

He called upon congress to enlarge the authority of the ex¬ 
ecutive, if such course should be deemed advisable, and said, 
referring to the property of the United States situated within 
the boundaries of South Carolina : 

‘^It is not believed that any attempt will be made to expel 
the United States from this property by force ; but if in this I 


168 


SUPERIORITY OF 


should prove to be mistaken, the officer in command of the 
forts has received orders to act strictly on the defensive.” 

He continued : 

Apart from the execution of the laws, so far as this may 
be permitted, the executive has no authority to decide what 
shall be the relations between the federal government and 
South Carolina. He has been invested with no such discre¬ 
tion. He possesses no power to change the relations hereto¬ 
fore existing between them, much less to acknowledge the 
independence of that State. This would be to invest a mere 
executive officer with the power of recognizing the dissolution 
of the Confederacy among our thirty-three sovereign States. 

. . . . Any attempt to do this would, on his part, be a naked 
act of usurpation. It is, therefore, my duty to submit to con¬ 
gress the whole question in all of its bearings.” 

He then proceeds to discuss the question of the power of 
congress to coerce a State attempting to withdraw from the 
Union, and his conclusion is that no such power is delegated 
to the federal government. This opinion, which is clearly 
correct, has been much criticised by those who failed to recog¬ 
nize the distinction between the power of congress to make war 
against a State of the Union, and the power to enforce the 
laws of congress upon the citizens of the United States as 
individuals. The distinction is sharply stated by Andrew 
Johnson, then a senator from Tennessee, and afterwards Presi¬ 
dent of the United States. In a speech upon the message 
made in the Senate December 18th, 1860, he presented Mr. 
Buchanan’s view, and his own, as follows : 

‘‘Asa State, the federal government has no power to coerce 
it; but it is a member of the compact to which it agreed in 
common with the other States, and this government has the 
right to pass laws, and to enforce those laws upon individuals 
toithin the limits of each State. While the one proposition is 
clear, the other is equally so. This government can, by the 
constitution of the country, and by the laws enacted in con¬ 
formity with the constitution, operate upon individuals, and 
has the right and power, not to coerce a State, but to enforce 
and execute the law upon individuals within the limits of a 
State. ” 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


169 


That is precisely the theory upon which the government 
carried on the war from the date of the firing upon Fort Sum¬ 
ter until the surrender at Appomatox. The Southern people 
who waged war against the government were treated as indi¬ 
vidual citizens of the United States banded together in rebel¬ 
lion against the government, and the ordinances of secession 
adopted in the several States were treated as utterly null and 
void, and wholly unavailing to justify such rebellious citi¬ 
zens in severing their allegiance to the government of the 
United States. This is clearly stated by Prof. Johnston in his 
article on Secession’’ in Lalor’s Cyclopaedia,” Vol. III., 
page 701, as follows, to wit : 

It was not until the popular uprising in the North had 
taught the administration what States it could rely upon, 
that the federal government was encouraged to begin the 
work of coercion by exercising its power to execute the laws 
and suppress insurrection by means of the armed militia. 
From that time coercion tooh the form of repression of indi¬ 
vidual resistance, the federal government ignoring the ac¬ 
tion of the State as entirely ultra vires. This is the form 
coercion took in its first operation in our history, the ' Force 
BilV 0/1833, and which it must always take.^^ 

In the face of President Buchanan’s irresistible argument 
against the right of secession, the South Carolina convention 
adopted an ordinance of secession on December 20th, 1860, 
and her act was soon followed by similar ordinances in six 
other States. It has been said that the people of those States 
were encouraged in their course by President Buchanan’s 
frankly stated theory that the federal government possessed 
no power to coerce a State ; but it must not be forgotten 
that his term was drawing to a close, and he was soon to be 
succeeded by a President elected by a party whose universally 
recognized organ was the New York Tribune. No news¬ 
paper ever so completely molded the sentiments and policy of 
a party as did that paper at that period. In its issue of No 
vember 9th, 1860, three days after Mr. Lincoln’s election, and 


170 


SUPERIORITY OF 


nearly a month before the date of President Buchanan’s mes¬ 
sage, that paper contained the following, to wit : 

^^If the cotton States shall become satisfied that they can 
do better out of the Union than in it, we insist on letting 
them go in 'peace. The right to secede may be a revolu¬ 
tionary one, but it exists nevertheless. ... We must 
ever resist the right of any State to remain in the Union and 
nullify or defy the laws thereof. To withdraw from the 
Union is quite another matter ; and whenever a considerable 
section of our Union shall deliberately resolve to go out, we 
shall resist all coercive measures designed to keep it in.” 

This was followed on December 17th, 1860, the very day 
fixed for the meeting of the South Carolina convention, by 
the following, to wit : 

If seven or eight contiguous States shall present them¬ 
selves authentically at Washington, saying, ‘We hate the 
Federal Union ; we have withdrawn from it; we give you 
the choice between acquiescing in our secession and arranging 
amicably all incidental questions on the one hand, and at¬ 
tempting to subdue us on the other,’ we could not stand up 
for coercion, for subjugation, for we do not think it icould he 
just.’’ 

Afterwards, on February 23d, 1861, after the seceded 
States had formed a confederacy and adopted a provisional 
constitution, the same paper contained an article repeating 
the sentiments of the above two extracts, and adding : 

‘^If the slave States, the cotton States, or the Gulf States 
only, choose to form an independent nation, they have a clear 
moral right to do so. Whenever it shall be clear that the 
great body of Southern people have become conclusively alien¬ 
ated from the Union, and anxious to escape from it, we will 
do our best to forward their views.” 

Such sentiments, coming from such source, must have 
given the Southern Disunionists a thousand-fold more en¬ 
couragement than anything contained in President Buchanan’s 
message. 

On the 8th of January, 1861, President Buchanan laid an- 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


171 


other message before congress, in which he earnestly appealed 
to the representatives of the people to act promptly in trying 
to prevent disunion by peaceful means, saying : In Heaven’s 
name, let the trial he made before we plunge into armed con¬ 
flict upon the mere assumption that there is no other alter¬ 
native.” During the remainder of his term, congress was 
engaged in the discussion of propositions for the peaceful 
adjustment of the sectional differences then existing; but no 
measure whatever was adopted looking towards the employ¬ 
ment of armed force, or to place the country in better condition 
for defense in case of armed attack. The overwhelming 
sentiment was against war. General Scott’s report showed 
that only five companies were available to add to the garrisons 
of Southern forts, and no provision was made to furnish the 
President with any additional force. In his message of 
January 8th, 1861, he informed congress that: 

Even now the danger is upon us. In several of the States 
which have not yet seceded, the forts, arsenals, and magazines 
have been seized. This is by far the tnost serious step which 
has been taken since the commencement of the troubles. . . . 
The seizure of this property, from all appearances, has been 
purely aggressive, and not in resistance to any attempt to 
coerce a State or States to remain in the Union. . . . The 
fact cannot be disguised that we are in the midst of a great 
revolution. In all its best bearings, therefore, I commend the 
question to congress, as the only human tribunal, under 
Providence, possessing the power to meet the existing emer¬ 
gency. To them exclusively belongs the power to declare war, 
or to authorize the employment of military force in all cases 
contemplated by the constitution ; and they alone possess the 
power to remove grievances which might lead to war, and to 
secure peace and union to this distracted country. On them, 
and on them alone, rests the responsibility.” 

Here was a plain declaration of the willingness of the Presi¬ 
dent to execute any law congress might enact, either for war 
or for peace; but congress refused to adopt any measure, 
either warlike or peaceable. What is the explanation of this 
conduct, which must appear singular to the people of this 


172 


SUPERIORITY OF 


generation ? Mr. Buchanan suggests the most charitable 
■view of it, at page 160 of his book, in these words : 

From the persistent refusal to pass any act enabling either 
the outgoing or the incoming administration to meet the 
contingency of civil war, it may fairly be inferred that the 
friends of Mr. Lincoln, in and out of congress, believed that 
he would be able to settle the existing difficulties wdth the 
cotton States in a peaceful manner, and that he might be 
embarrassed by any legislation contemplating the necessity of 
a resort to hostile measures.” 

The term of the congress expired with the close of Bu¬ 
chanan's administration, and Abraham Lincoln became Pres¬ 
ident. Persons accustomed to the modern denunciation of 
President Buchanan’s imbecility and lack of patriotism would 
naturally expect to learn that the first act of his successor 
was to boldly throttle rebellion with a merciless grasp, and 
never slacken his hold until he had choked the life out of it; 
but respect for the truth of history necessitates the recording 
of the fact that he expressed even greater anxiety for con¬ 
ciliation and peace than President Buchanan had shown. At 
page 290 of his book Mr. Blaine says, in reference to the 
task presented to Mr. Lincoln and his cabinet in March, 1861: 

To judge it now by any appearance of irresolution,-or by 
any seeming deficiency of courage, would be trying it by a 
standard totally inapplicable and unfair. Before and beyond 
all things, Mr. Lincoln desired to prevent war, and he felt 
that every day of peace gave fresh hope that bloodshed might 
be avoided.” 

Mr. Buchanan was actuated by precisely the same dominant 
desire, and it is simply fair that his conduct should be tried 
by the same standard and measured by the same rule that is 
applied to the conduct of Mr. Lincoln. It is impossible to 
try the two Presidents by the same tests, from the date of 
Lincoln’s election until the firing upon Sumter, and fairly 
adjudge the one to be faulty and the other faultless ; for be¬ 
tween those dates it is imj^ossible to find any substantial differ- 


DE3I0CRATIC AD^IINISTRATION. 


173 


ence in the policy of the two Presidents towards the Dis- 
nnionists. 

In his Inaugural Address Mr. Lincoln gave the American 
people the most positive assurance that the property, peace, 
and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by 
the now incoming administration ; ” and he solemnly declared 
to the Southern people that he had neither lawful right ” 
nor inclination ” nor any purpose to interfere with the 
institution of slavery in the States where it exists.” Address¬ 
ing himself to the disaffected people of the South, he said : 

In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and 
not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. govern¬ 
ment zoill not assail you. You can have no conflict without 
being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered 
in heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the 
most solemn one to ^preserve, protect and defend it.’” 

With reference to the policy he intended to pursue towards 
the seceded States, he said : 

The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, 
and possess the property and places belonging to the govern¬ 
ment, and to collect the duties and imposts ; but beyond 
what is necessary for these objects there will be no invasion, 
no using of force against or among the people anywhereY 

On the 13th of April following, a committee of the Virginia 
Convention, then in session, waited upon President Lincoln 
in pursuance of a resolution appointing them to respectfully 
ask him to communicate to this convention the policy which 
the federal executive intends to* pursue in regard to the Con¬ 
federate States.” In answer to this request from a convention 
then in session for the very purpose of determining whether 
it would adopt an ordinance of secession or not. President 
Lincoln addressed a respectful communication, in which he 
quoted the last above given paragraph of his Inaugural, and 
proceeded to explain it as follows, to wit : 

By the words ^ property and places belonging to the gov- 


174 


SUPERIORITY OF 


ernment/ I chiefly allude to the military posts and property 
which were in the possession of the government when it came 
into my hands.’’ 

Still further, he said : 

^MVliatever else I may do for the purpose, I shall not 
attempt to collect the duties and imposts by any armed in¬ 
vasion of any part of the country—not meaning by this, how¬ 
ever, that I may not land a force necessary to relieve a fort 
upon the border of the country.” 

What measure of criticism and bitter denunciation would 
have been meted out to President Buchanan if he had sent 
such a communication to a State convention then in the act 
of deliberating upon the question of secession ! Up to this 
time President Lincoln had not only utterly failed to con¬ 
trovert Mr. Buchanan’s theory that no power had been dele¬ 
gated to the federal government to coerce a State, but he 
had distinctly assured the Disunionists, whom he addressed as 
his dissatisfied fellow-countrymen,” that the government 
would not assault them ; that they could have no conflict 
without themselves being the aggressors ; and that there 
should be no armed invasion of any part of the country. 

When did Mr. Buchanan ever give any such assurances to 
the Southern Disunionists ? Never ; and yet he has been de¬ 
nounced, as Gen. McClellan and Gen. Hancock have been, as 
being in alliance with the Disunionists, while Mr. Lincoln has 
been placed upon a pinnacle so lofty that his partisans are 
shocked at the very suggestion of criticism of his conduct. 
Let the merits and demerits of all be fairly tested by the 
same standard. 

The very day that President Lincoln addressed his com¬ 
munication to the Virginia convention. Fort Sumter fell, the 
rebels themselves being the aggressors.” Not until then did 
President Lincoln issue his proclamation, and it will be well 
for those who have criticised President Buchanan’s theory of 
coercion, and his alleged attempt to place the responsibility of 


DEMOCRATIC AD3nNISTRATI0N. 


175 


action upon congress, to note what President Lincoln’s procla¬ 
mation of April 15th, 1861, was. It recited that the laws of 
the United States had been and Avere opposed, and the execu¬ 
tion thereof obstructed, in seven specified States, “ by com¬ 
binations too powerful to he suppressed by the ordinary course 
of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the mar¬ 
shals by law Avherefore he called forth 75,000 of the mili¬ 
tia of the several States of the Union,” in order to suppress 
said combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed.” 
Not a word in the whole proclamation about coercing a seceded 
State to return to its place in the Union ; it is directed wholly 
against individuals, and in no part against States, and contains 
a command to thepersons composing the combinations afore¬ 
said to disperse and retire peaceably to their respective abodes, 
within twenty days from this date.” It concludes with a call 
upon the members of both houses of congress to meet July 4th 
‘‘ to consider and determine such measures as, in their wis¬ 
dom, the public safety and interest may seem to demand.” 

During President Buchanan’s administration, not an arm 
was raised, nor an article of government property seized, nor 
an ordinance of secession adopted, nor any resistance to fed¬ 
eral authority exhibited in any Southern State, until after con¬ 
gress assembled on December 3d, 1860. To that congress 
alone belonged the power to declare war and to provide for 
placing the country in a better state of defense, and President 
Buchanan properly submitted the Avhole matter to its consid¬ 
eration. That congress engaged in the discussion of concilia¬ 
tory measures until the very close of Buchanan’s administra¬ 
tion, and he would have been deserving of criticism if he 
had resorted to any act of executive violence during the delib¬ 
erations of congress. 

When the Disunionists violently assaulted the government 
a few weeks after Mr. Lincoln’s inauguration, he promptly 
summoned the members of the Thirty-seventh Congress to 
meet in extra session on July 4th, 1861, to the end that they 
might determine such measures as the public safety might 


176 


SUPERIORITY OF 


seem to them to demand. Congress met and passed an act 
approved July 22d, 1861, entitled, An act to authorize the 
employment of volunteers to aid in enforcing the laws and 
protecting public property,” and which provided ^‘That the 
President be, and he is hereby authorized to accept the serv¬ 
ices of volunteers, either as cavalry, infantry, or artillery, in 
such numbers, not exceeding five hundred thousand, as he 
may deem necessary, for the purpose of repelling invasion, sup¬ 
pressing insurrection, enforcing the laws, and preserving and 
protecting the public property y A previous act of the same 
congress, approved July 12th, 1861, had authorized the Presi¬ 
dent to proclaim the inhabitants of any State to be in a state 
of insurrection against the United States when such insur¬ 
gents claim to act under the authority of any State or States, 
and such claim is not disclaimed or repudiated by the per¬ 
sons exercising the functions of tlie government in such State 
or States.” There was not a word in either of these acts, 
or any other act passed throughout the war, authorizing 
the President to employ the army in coercing any State. 
Kebellious citizens were to be coerced, but not States. Every 
measure adopted during the war vindicates the opinion of At¬ 
torney-General Black and President Buchanan, that no power 
is delegated to the federal government to coerce a State. 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


177 


CHAPTER XV. 

REVIVAL OF FEDERALISM.—THE WAR PERIOD. 

Almost simultaneously with the assumption of control of 
the government by the Republican party, there began a course 
of corruption, extravagance, favoritism of individuals and 
classes, and aggressions upon the rights of the people and of 
the States. Almost the first act of President Lincoln was to 
surround himself with a cabinet mainly composed of his prin¬ 
cipal rivals for the nomination. With respect to one of his 
cabinet officers, Simon Cameron, Secretary of AYar, there is 
no secret that his selection was the result of a bargain between 
the managers of Mr. Lincoln’s candidacy in the Chicago con¬ 
vention and certain adherents of Mr. Cameron. One of the 
biographers of Abraham Lincoln denies that he was a party to 
the bargain, and says that it was with difficulty that he could 
be brought up to the point of party discipline required to fulfill 
the engagement made by his managers. The language of his 
biographer is this : 

It required a hard struggle to overcome Mr. Lincoln’s 
scruples ; and the whole force was necessarily mustered in 
order to accomplish it. ^ All that I am in the world,’ said he, 
‘ the Presidency and all else, I owe to that opinion of me 
which the people expressed when they called me honest old 
Abe. Now, what will they think of their honest Abe when 
he appoints Simon Cameron to be his familiar adviser ?’ ” 

However, party machinery, even at that early day of the 
party’s history, was too powerful to be resisted by the personal 
scruples of any officer elected by that party, and Simon Cam¬ 
eron became Secretary of AYar. When Congress assembled in 
extra session a few months afterwards, complaints of fraud 
12 


178 


SUPERIORITY OF 


and corruption in the War Department and Navy Department 
had already become so loud that Mr. Van Wyck, a Eepresen- 
tative from New York, and a Kepublican, introduced a reso¬ 
lution for the appointment of a committee of inquiry “to 
ascertain and report to the House of Kepresentatives what 
contracts have been made by any of the Departments for pro¬ 
visions, supplies and transportation, for materials and service, 
or for any article furnished for the use of the government 
without advertising for proposals,” as required by law. A 
committee of seven was appointed, composed of four Eepubli- 
cans and three Democrats. The committee organized July 
17th, 1861, and applied to Congress for an enlargement of 
the authority already conferred, and particularly for authority 
to sit during the recess of Congress. This promptly brought 
to the surface an exhibition of that disposition to cover up 
partisan rascality which has been one of the conspicuous 
features of Eepublican policy. The defenders of the accused 
urged that no specific charges had been made ; but there were 
members of that Congress who were patriots as well as Eepub- 
licans, and Mr. Van Wyck answered the excuse by saying : 

“The gentleman has stated that there are no specific 
charges of fraud and corruption. I state that there are spe¬ 
cific charges of fraud and corruption on the part of public 
servants. I make the statement distinctly. ... I venture 
the assertion that in a few short months of this warfare 
against the rebels, there has been, on the part of some men, a 
system of plunder upon the government w*hich will excel in 
audacity and wickedness any that has characterized previous 
administrations.” 

Mr. Dawes, another Eepublican member of the committee, 
in answer to those bold partisans who would stifle investiga¬ 
tion, said : 

“ I have in my possession no evidence against outside par¬ 
ties who have embraced this occasion to fill their own pockets 
out of the public treasury ; but, sir, no man can have failed 
to take notice of the fact that the country is full of rumors 
in this respect .... If the committee enter upon their 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


179 


duties at all, they must have their life extended beyond this 
session of Congress. The House has agreed to adjourn on 
Friday, and between this and Friday we can do nothing.” 

In the face of the fact that a defeat of the resolution would 
practically defeat the investigation and prolong the term of 
license for rascality, forty-nine partisans of the accused voted 
to table the resolution to seventy-six votes in the negative. 
Dilatory motions were then resorted to for the purpose of 
defeating the investigation, but the art of covering partisan 
frauds had not then attained the development of subsequent 
years, and the investigation proceeded during the recess of 
Congress. The committee submitted its first report on De¬ 
cember 17th, 1861. Amongst the monstrous frauds exposed 
by that committee was the charter of the steamer Cataline 
by the government for three months at $10,000 per month, 
from a favorite who had bought the vessel for $18,000 from 
the owner, one of the conditions of the charter being that in 
case of loss of vessel by accident of war the government was 
to pay $50,000 for her ; the purchase by another favorite of 
two sailing vessels for $6,500 and turning them over to the 
government at $14,500 ; the purchase by a government agent 
of a steamer at $55,000 from a favorite who bought it for 
$35,600, and, before sale, chartered it to the government for 
two months at $15,000 ; the payment to an agent, as com¬ 
missions on the purchase of vessels, the enormous sum of 
$51,584 for services covering only seven weeks, and still 
further compensation, making in all,” as the report of the 
committee declares, the sum of $95,000 paid to a single 
individual for his service as agent of the government since the 
15th day of July—a period of four months.” In commenting 
on this fact the committee said : No citizen can justify 
any such attempt to convert the public necessity into an 
occasion for making private fortunes ; ” and they added that 
there was no difficulty in securing the services of competent 
and experienced agents for such service for a salary not 
exceeding $5,000 for the year.” The Hall carbine swindle,” 


180 


SUPERIORITY OF 


as it was called, consisted of a private sale by the government 
of Hall carbines at 13.50, wbicli the purchaser altered at a 
cost of 75 cents to $1.25 each, and then sold them to a favor¬ 
ite at $12.50, who turned them over to the government at $22 
each. The committee reported : 

These arms seem to have been sold privately, and without 
inviting any competition, and sold, too, for an almost nom¬ 
inal price. The sale was made by order of the Secretary of 
War, on the recommendation of the Ordnance Bureau. No 
government that ever has existed can sustain itself with such 
improvidence in the management of its afPairs. One agent of 
the government sells these arms at $3.50 each, in the midst 
of a pressing demand for arms, and a few weeks afterwards, 
without any increase in this demand, the same arms, slightly 
altered, are resold to the government through another agent 
for $22 each, the government losing in so small a transaction, 
if permitted to be consummated, over $90,000.” 

The committee unearthed a purchase of a lot of 25,000 
Austrian condemned muskets, requiring special ammunition, 
and being practically worthless ; the cost of the muskets and 
ammunition being $166,000. The committee said : 

Immense supplies both in the Navy as well as the AVar 
Department, the necessity for which, in the ordinary course 
of things, was easily foreseen, have been purchased privately 
under contracts, express or implied, without any competition 
being invited.” 

One Western firm furnished over $800,000 of supplies on 
the requisition of a quartermaster, on which they admitted a 
profit of 40 per cent. The committee said : 

There is much evidence of gross mismanagement and 
culpable carelessness in making contracts, together with a 
reckless improvidence of the means of the government. Evi¬ 
dence exists of large contracts for cattle having been made 
without any advertisements for bids, or any effort being made 
by the agents of the government to satisfy themselves that 
the prices to be paid were exorbitant or even extortionate. 
Cattle were furnished at prices per pound, live weight, very 
little, if any, below the retail prices for the meat in any of the 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


181 


markets of the country. ... We have here not only evi¬ 
dence of gross mismanagement and total disregard of the 
interests of the government, and a total recklessness in the 
expenditure of the funds of the government, but there is 
every reason to believe that there was collusion upon the part 
of the employes of the government to assist in robbing the 
Treasury ; for, when a conscientious officer refused to pass 
cattle not in accordance with the contract, he was, in fact, 
superseded by one who had no conscientious scruples in the 
matter, and cattle that were rejected by his predecessor were 
at once accepted.” 


Again : 

‘^Your committee found that the most astounding and 
unblushing frauds have been perpetrated in the purchase of 
horses and mules made by the Quartermaster’s Department; 
and the evidence left no doubt on their minds that the Quar¬ 
termaster himself was in collusion with the corrupt and 
unprincipled men who combined together to swindle the 
government. . . . The maximum price fixed to be paid by 
the government for ordinary cavalry horses and for mules was 
$119, and that appears to have been the sum paid by the gov¬ 
ernment for every cavalry horse and every mule purchased in 
Missouri. The maximum price for artillery horses was $150. 
The prices paid by these go-betweens to the owners or to the 
legitimate dealers immediately representing the original 
owners, ranged from $85 to $105, $108 and $110 for cavalry 
horses and mules, and $125 for artillery horses. The difference 
between these prices and the prices paid by the government, 
that is, $119 for cavalry horses and for mules, and $150 for 
artillery horses, loent into the pockets of the favorite go- 
betweens.^^ 

An instance was reported of a purchase of a quantity of 
^‘rotten and condemned blankets” which were billed to an 
army officer by a relative at $1.35 each, and by that officer 
turned over to the government at $3.85 each. Another in¬ 
stance was the payment of $5,000 for a colonel’s commission, 
the purchaser giving as his reason for thus investing so large 
a sum that he could make $25,000 or more in the purchase of 
a thousand horses. The committee, after reporting the above 


182 


SUPERIORITY OF 


and numerous other similar transactions, denounced the 
operations as ^^a system of brokerage as unprincipled and 
dishonest, and as unfriendly to the welfare of the nation, as 
the plottings of actual treason.’’ 

After submitting their first report to congress, the com¬ 
mittee continued their investigations, and, after having 

examined 350 witnesses,” made a further report to congress 
at its next session, in Avhich they specify numerous abuses 
and frauds which they had unearthed ; amongst others, the 
purchase of two ships that had cost $111,000 by the General 
Transport Agent ” for $200,000, one of which foundered on 
her first voyage, and the other reached her port of destination 
with her cargo ruined. Vessels were chartered at rates of 
from $500 to $2,000 per day, and lay in port month after 
month without rendering any service ; the small steamer 
Saxon, which cost $24,000 when new, was chartered at 
$300 per day, and lay at the wharf until her rental amounted 
to $18,000, and when she had made one trip to Ship Island 
her claim on the government amounted to $29,000. A 
prominent official of a great railroad company was made 
Superintendent of Transportation by appointment of the Sec¬ 
retary of War, in which capacity he fixed a rate of charges 
to be paid by the government to railroad companies, wdiich 
rate the committee pronounced outrageous and indefensi¬ 
ble,” and said : The body of the testimony taken by the com¬ 
mittee establishes the fact that the prices fixed by this schedule 
for transporting freights will exceed by 33 per cent, the prices 
paid by private parties for like trans[)ortation.” 

In connection with these exposures of frauds upon a scale 
of magnitude such as the people had never before experienced, 
it is interesting to read the sixth resolution of the platform 
adopted by the Eepublican National Convention that had 
placed Mr. Lincoln in nomination less than two years before. 
It is as follows, to wit: 

6. That the people justly view with alarm the reckless 
extravagance which pervades every department of the Federal 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION, 


183 


gOYernment; that a return to rigid economy and accounta¬ 
bility is indispensable to arrest the systematic plunder of the 
public treasury by favored partisans ; while the recent start¬ 
ling developments of frauds and corruptions at the federal 
metropolis show that an entire change of administration is 
imperatively demanded.” 

That was the Eepuhlican principle when the party was out 
of power and drumming up for votes to get in ; the report of 
the congressional committee above referred to shows how the 
party carried out its pretensions of reform when it got control 
of the government. 

The extra session of Congress which convened July 4th, 
1861, pursuant to President Lincoln’s proclamation, was still 
in session at the time of the first Bull Run disaster; immedi¬ 
ately after which the celebrated Crittenden Resolution passed 
the House by a vote of 117 to 2, and the Senate by a vote of 
30 to 5. The resolution is as follows, to wit: 

That the present deplorable civil war has been forced upon 
the country hy the Disunionists of the Southern States note 
in revolt against the constitutional government, and in arms 
around the capital; that, in this national emergency, con¬ 
gress, banishing all feeling of mere passion or resentment, 
will recollect only its duty to the whole country ; that this 
war is not waged, on our part, in any spirit of oppression, nor 
for any purpose of conquest or subjugation, nor purpose of 
overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established 
institutions of those States; but to maintain and defend the 
supremacy of the constitution, and to preserve the Union, 
with all the dignity, equality and rights of the several States 
unimpaired; and, as soon as these objects are accomplished, 
the war ouglit to cease.” 

Having thus expressly declared the purposes of the war, 
that congress passed bills closing the Southern ports against 
commerce, authorizing the appropriation of $500,000,000 for 
the army and navy, the calling out of 500,000 volunteers, 
and the confiscation of property, including slaves, employed 
against the government. The Democrats joined heartily in 
all efforts of the government to preserve the Union; but it 


184 


SUPERIORITY OF 


soon became manifest that there was a growing purpose 
amongst Eepublicans to essentially modify the government, 
and to disregard the constitution whenever it loomed up as 
an obstacle in their way. The cry of the Democrats was, 
‘‘The constitution as it is, the Union as it was.” They ob¬ 
served manifestations of a design to j)rolong the war, and per¬ 
vert it from the purposes declared in President Lincoln’s first 
proclamation, and in the foregoing resolution of congress. 
After the disastrous battle of Bull Run, July 21st, 1861, Gen. 
McClellan, a Democrat, had been placed in chief command 
of the Federal army. The head of the Confederate govern¬ 
ment was then at Richmond, and the Federal authorities were 
concentrating their principal forces for a decisive blow at 
that head, as the country was led to believe. The Peninsular 
campaign was determined upon, and the people of the North 
looked forward hopefully to the success of a movement that 
would seriously cripple, if it did not speedily end, the rebell¬ 
ion. If the Peninsular campaign had been successful; if 
Richmond had fallen in 1862, and the Confederates had been 
then compelled to remove their seat of government into the 
cotton States ; if the theater of war had been transferred from 
the advantageous defensive territory of Virginia, perhaps no 
intelligent man North or South doubted then, or doubts now, 
that the war would have come to an end at least two years 
earlier than it did, and untold expenditures of blood and 
treasure would have been saved. 

If General McClellan had received the support ho desired 
and expected, and upon which his j)lan of campaign was 
based and carried forward, and whicli was afterwards accorded 
to his victorious successor, few men in the North then doubted, 
or can fairly doubt now, that Richmond would have fallen in 
1862, and that the Confederate government and army would 
have then been driven out of Virginia. 

The failure of that terrible campaign is attributable to the 
withdrawal of McDowell’s army, upon which McClellan relied, 
and upon which he had been led to rely.- Whoever is respon- 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


185 


sible for preventing the co-operation of McDowell’s forces with 
the army of McClellan is responsible for the failure of the 
Peninsular campaign and the prolongation of the war, with 
its horrors, its calamities, its growing burden of expense, and 
its wide-spread plunder of the government and of private prop¬ 
erty. To such of our citizens as rely on the testimony of Gen. 
McClellan, a perusal of the book entitled McClellan’s Own 
Story ” will leave no doubt upon the question of responsibility ; 
but even amongst fair-minded Eepublicans, who deprecate the 
mad denunciation of McClellan as an ally of the Confeder¬ 
acy,” some further evidence than that of the gallant Demo¬ 
cratic general is required to carry conviction that the responsi¬ 
bility of the disasters in front of Richmond, in 1862, belongs 
to the Republican administration. For their benefit the fol¬ 
lowing extract is taken from Blaine’s Book, Vol. I., page 367 : 

When General McDowell was turned back from Freder¬ 
icksburg to take part in the fruitless chase after Stonewall 
Jackson in the Shenandoah Valley, he was doing precisely 
what the president of the Confederate States would have 
ordered had he been able to issue the orders of the president 
of the United States. McDowell saw the blunder, but his 
directions were j^eremptory and nothing w^as left but to obey.” 

Mr. Blaine declares that McDowell ventured to argue the 
case with Mr. Lincoln, and to show how his fatal order would 
be ruinous to the campaign, and continues as follows, to wit : 

Conclusive as the reasoning of General McDowell seems, 
it did not move Mr. Lincoln from his purpose; and the heavy 
re-enforcement which was then within three days of the point 
where it could most effectively aid McClellan, was diverted to 
a hopeless and useless pursuit. Had McDowell been allowed 
to proceed as he desired, and as McClellan confidently ex¬ 
pected, he would have re-enforced the Army of the Potomac 
for an attack on Lee while Stonewall Jackson’s corps was in 
the Shenandoah Valley. By the unfortunate diversion or¬ 
dered by Mr. Lincoln precisely the reverse occurred. Stone- 
w'all Jackson’s corps arrived before Richmond in season to 
aid in defeating McClellan, while McDowell, with his splen¬ 
did contingent, was aimlessly loitering in a distant part of 
Virginia. ” 


186 


SUPERIORITY OF 


Such is the expressed opinion of Mr. Blaine, and it is at 
least safe to say that it is not warped by any bias against 
President Lincoln or in favor of Gen. McClellan. The cor¬ 
respondence between Gen. McClellan and the authorities at 
Washington, during the Peninsular campaign, shows conclu¬ 
sively that the General in the field believed at the time that 
his army was not receiving the support it required for success, 
because of an indisposition on the part of the authorities to 
make the campaign successful. This clearly appears from 
McClellan’s bold dispatch sent to the Secretary of War on the 
evening of June 27th, 1862, after the terrible battle of Gaines’s 
Mill, in which he declared : 

If I save this army now I tell you plainly that I owe no 
thanks to you or to any persons in Washington. You have 
done your best to sacrifice this armyY 

It has been correctly said by critics of Gen. McClellan that 
no subordinate was ever permitted to make such a declaration 
to a superior without instant dismissal ; but it was made, and 
it was meant by the brave man whose heart was moved by the 
terrific slaughter that day of his loving and beloved soldiers ; 
and he was not dismissed for making it. On the contrary. 
President Lincoln answered next day, over his own signature, 
saying: 

Save your army at all events. ... I have not said you 
were ungenerous for saying you needed re-enforcements ; I 
thought you were ungenerous in assuming that I did not send 
them as fast as I could. ... If you have had a drawn battle 
or a repulse, it ts the price toe pay for the enemy not being 
in Washington. We protected Washington, and the enemy 
concentrated on you. ... It is the nature of the case, and 
neither you nor the government is to blame.” 

Here is President Lincoln’s answer to the charge that the 
Army of the Potomac was being purposely sacrificed, and his 
express testimony that Gen. McClellan was not to blame. 
During the next three days successive battles were fought at 
Savage Station, Glendale and Malvern Hill, in which the 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION, 


187 


rebels were repulsed. On the day of the latter battle, Presi¬ 
dent Lincoln telegraphed to General McClellan : 

Maintain your ground if you can, but save the army at 
all events, even if you fall back on Fort Monroe. We dill 
have strength enough in the country and will bring it out^^ 

In a dispatch on the following day he said : 

If you think you are not strong enough to take Eichmond 
just now, I do not ask you to try just now. Save the army, 
material, and personnel, and I will strengthen it for the 
offenfsive again as fast as I can.” 

Instead of being strengthened and enabled to take the 
offensive, it was withdrawn pursuant to peremptory orders 
from the authorities at Washington, and against the earnest 
protest of Gen. McClellan, who was soon after relieved from 
its command. There was undoubtedly a wide-spread belief 
at the time, that the gallant Army of the Potomac had been 
sacrificed on account of a monstrous and unpatriotic jealousy 
of the growing popularity of its great Democratic commander. 

Beyond all question the success of the Peninsular campaign 
under McClellan would have resulted in an essential differ¬ 
ence in subsequent political events. At that date no impor¬ 
tant inroad shad been made upon the institution of slavery, 
and if McClellan’s campaign had been successful, the war 
would have come to an end without affording any cause or 
pretext for the overthrow of slavery as a military necessity ; 
the plunder of the government by partisan favorites would 
have been greatly curtailed by the early closing of the war ; 

the Union as it was” would have been restored; nearly 
three awful years of war, and millions upon millions of 
treasure would have been saved ; and no power on earth 
could have prevented the triumphant election of the victori¬ 
ous Democratic general to the presidency in 1864. Whatever 
may be said of the responsibility of the failure of the Peninsu¬ 
lar campaign, it is certain that the prolongation of the war 
resulting therefrom enabled the Republican party to secure a 


188 


SUPERIORITY OF 


violent hold upon the government, which it continued to 
keep for twenty years by methods never practiced by any 
other party in the country. 

The war continued with its military blunders, its oppres¬ 
sions and gigantic frauds upon the government, disaster fol¬ 
lowing disaster throughout the remainder of the summer, 
until McClellan was again called to the front to arrest the 
adverse current at Antietam. This was on the 17th day of 
September, 1862. Five days afterwards the Proclamation of 
Emancipation was issued. As late as September 13th, Presi- 
detit Lincoln had received a deputation of Chicago clergymen 
who urged upon him the advisability of issuing such procla¬ 
mation, and he argued with them against such policy, saying: 

do not want to issue a document that the whole world will 
see must necessarily he inoperative, like the Pope’s bull against 
the Comet ” ; and when they still urged him, he said : 

There are fifty thousand bayonets in the Enion army from 
the Border Slave States. It would be a serious matter if, in 
consequence of a proclamation such as you desire, they should 
go over to the rebels. I do not think they all would—not 
so many, indeed, as a year ago. or as six months ago—not so 
many to-day as yesterday. Every day increases their Enion 
feeling. They are also getting their pride enlisted, and w^ant 
to beat the rebels.’’ 

When the battle of Antietam had been won by the com¬ 
mander who could not be disgraced, and the rebel invaders 
were driven back into Virginia, the proclamation likely to be 
fraught with the above-stated dangerous consequences was sent 
out on the heels of the news of victory. It was a singular 
document, the significant portion of which was in the language 
following, to wit: 

^^TJiat on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord 
one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, "all persons held 
as slaves within any State, or designated part of a State, the 
people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United 
States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free. ” 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


189 


It further stated that on January 1st, 1863, the President 
would declare by proclamation what States and parts of States 
were then in rebellion ; and that the fact that any State was 
on that day represented in good faith in tlie congress of the 
United States would be taken as evidence that such State, and 
the people thereof, were not then in rebellion. There was not 
a word about this proclamation being a necessary war measure. 
Theretofore the war had been conducted upon the most solemn 
assurances that its only purpose was to restore the authority 
of the government in the seceded States ; but now the people 
of those States were notified that their refusal to send repre¬ 
sentatives to congress before January 1st, 1863, would be fol¬ 
lowed by the entire overthrow of the institution which they 
had taken up arms to preserve from anticipated destruction. 

The apparent natural effect of such proclamation would be 
to consolidate the South, drive Unionists of the border slave 
States into hostility, and create disaffection at the North. On 
the first day of January, 1863, the threatened proclamation 
was issued “as a fit and necessary war measure for suppress¬ 
ing said rebellion.” Its unavoidable effect was to prolong 
the war by increasing the desperation of the rebels, and 
creating discord amongst the supporters of the Union. Its 
wisdom was more than doubted by many devoted friends 
of the Union then, and its want of wisdom as a war measure 
is even more apparent now. It is easy to understand that a 
man who believed that a Union of free States with slave 
States could not exist permanently, would readily avail him¬ 
self of his power as commander-in-chief to strike down slavery 
as a menace to the continued existence of a restored Union; 
but how this proclamation could possibly be justified as a wise 
and necessary war measure, at the time it was issued, will 
become more and more difficult to appreciate the more it is 
considered. 

It had been preceded by the Act of April 16th, 1862, abolish¬ 
ing slavery in the District of Columbia, and by the Act of June 
19th, 1862, abolishing slavery in the Territories then existing 


190 


SUPERIORITY OF 


or that might he thereafter acquired. These acts, followed 
by the executive proclamation, produced undisguised dissatis¬ 
faction among the Union men of the border slave States and 
Northern Democrats. The latter regarded it as grossly unfair, 
and a palpable breach of good faith on the part of the Eepub- 
licans, to further party measures at a time when both parties 
had mutually agreed to obliterate party lines until the Union 
had been restored. The almost universal sentiment in the 
North in 1861 was to drop all party issues so long as the war 
for the Union should continue; and, these anti-slavery pro¬ 
ceedings having formed the very issues between the parties be¬ 
fore the war, the Democrats claimed that it was an outrageous 
breach of good faith to press these political questions while 
the war was still raging. They argued that the abolition of 
slavery in the District and in the Territories could not possibly 
be of any benefit a« war measures ; that they could not silence 
one rebel musket; and that their only possible effect would 
be to intensify disunion in the South, and create discord, where 
there was practical unanimity, in the North. The executive 
proclamation was more objectionable than the offensive con¬ 
gressional legislation, and more productive of discord. The 
Democrats ridiculed the pretense that it was a necessary war 
measure, or that it could by any possibility strengthen the 
military arm of the government. They argued, just as Mr. 
Lincoln himself had argued with the Chicago clergymen, that 
the proclamation was an inoperative paper declaration which 
could effect no good and would produce discord. 

The Democrats said, as they had good reason to say, that 
the party truce declared at the North when Sumter fell had 
been shamefully violated by the Eepublicans, who were taking 
advantage of Democratic non-partisanship to advance the most 
offensive of their party measures. They saw nothing but par¬ 
tisan politics in the anti-slavery movements of 1862 and 1863, 
and hence, as Mr. Blaine says, at page 435 : 

Popular interest in the summer of 1862 was divided be¬ 
tween events in the field and the election of Eepresentatives 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION, 


191 


of the Thirty-eighth Congress. A year before, the line of 
partisan division had been practically obliterated in the Loyal 
States—the whole people uniting in support of the war. The 
progress of events had to a large extent changed this auspi¬ 
cious unanimity, and the administration was soon subjected 
to a fight for its life while it was fighting for the life of the 
nation. . . . The slavery question was the source of the 
agitation, and by a common instinct throughout the free 
States, the Democrats joined in the cry against an Abolition 
war. They were as ready, they declared, as on the day after 
the firing on Sumter, to uphold all measures necessary for the 
defense of the government and the maintenance of the Union, 
and they demanded that the Eepublicans should restrict the 
w^ar to its legitimate ends—as defined by the supporters of 
the administration in July, 1861, by the unanimous adoption 
of the Crittenden Resolution. They would not listen to any 
change of action based on change of circumstances, and they 
prepared to enforce at the ballot-box their opinions touching 
the new departure of congress and the President.” 

Then, as always, the Democrats held that public declara¬ 
tions of principles, in platforms and otherwise, were entitled 
to respect, and were not to be violated as soon as the party 
making them had gained the power to disregard them. 
In their State Conyentions in the summer of 1862, they 
generally adopted resolutions deprecating the policy of the 
President, and the Republican majority in congress, in per¬ 
verting the purposes of the war from its declared and consti¬ 
tutional object, to the advancement of partisan and fanatical 
measures. Before the campaign had fairly opened the Procla¬ 
mation was sent out as further notice of the extreme to which 
the party in power intended to carry its warfare upon an 
institution that all but Abolition fanatics had always admitted 
to be a matter of domestic control in each State. The result 
of the perversion of the war to partisan purposes was political 
disaster to the administration party in the five leading free 
States, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois. 
These five States elected fifty-nine Democrats to Congress and 
only forty Republicans. The Republican majorities in some 


192 


SUPERIORITY OF 


of the other free States were materially reduced. The border 
slaTe States generally returned members favorable to the 
administration, although the Democrats have always main¬ 
tained that the elections in those States did not fairly repre¬ 
sent the sentiments of the majority of the people. The strong 
hand of the military was felt in the elections in those States, 
giving the Democrats another serious cause for hostility to the 
political policy of the administration. 

The elections of the fall of 1862 made it jdain to the leaders 
of the Republican party that their political supremacy could 
not be maintained, if the people were left free to their own 
choice of men and measures, after full and free discussion of 
the issues affecting the public welfare. Strong government 
measures must be put into active operations by the Republi¬ 
cans, or the Democrats would certainly secure control of the 
government. The last session of the Thirty-seventh Congress 
opened December 1st, 1862, and it was utilized to the best 
advantages by the Republican majority for partisan purposes. 
Previous to the opening of congress, numerous arrests of 
citizens of States not in rebellion had been made by executive 
authority, upon suspicion, as alleged, that such persons were 
giving, or intending to give, aid and comfort to the rebels. 
When congress assembled, these arbitrary arrests were legal¬ 
ized, and an ^^Act relating to habeas cor]pus, and regulating 
judicial proceedings in certain cases ’’ was passed. It provided 
that ^‘during the present rebellion the President of the United 
States, whenever in his judgment the public safety may require 
it, is authorized to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas 
corpus'va any case throughout the United States or any part 
thereof ; and whenever said writ shall be suspended no mili¬ 
tary or other officer shall be compelled, in answer to any writ 
of habeas corpus, to return the body of any person or persons 
detained by him by authority of the President.” 

This act went far beyond the extreme scope of the old Alien 
and Sedition Laws enacted by the Federalists, and it created 
wide-spread alarm amongst the people who still clung fondly 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


193 


to the republican policy to which they had been accustomed 
through the long years of Democratic administration. It 
closed the civil courts of the country to every citizen of any 
State who had a political or personal enemy who could bring 
him under the ban of the President’s suspicion. The liberty 
of every citizen in the land was subjected to the arbitrary 

judgment” of one man, who, without complaint, hearing or 
trial, could order the arrest and incarceration of whomsoever 
he might see fit; and there was absolutely no redress in any 
court of law. 

The same congress passed an Act for enrolling and call¬ 
ing out the national forces and for other purposes,” popularly 
called the Conscription Act. It subjected all able-bodied 
citizens of the United States between the ages of twenty and 
forty-five, with a few specified exceptions, to the performance 
of military duty at the call of the President. Prior to the 
perversion of the war from the constitutional purposes declared 
in the Crittenden Eesolution, every call for troops to serve 
in the suppression of the rebellion had been promptly and 
cheerfully filled by volunteers ; but the party in power then 
knew that their partisan war policy would discourage volun¬ 
tary enlistments in a cause likely to be carried to any mo¬ 
narchical extreme ; and it therefore made provision for filling 
the depleted ranks of the army by compulsion. 

These twin acts of monarchy were not the only blows at 
constitutional government made by the Republican majority 
in congress. In palpable violation of a plain provision of the 
constitution, a State had been created within the boundaries 
of Virginia without the consent of its Legislature. (See Art. 
IV., Sec. 3, of the constitution.) A pretense was made by the 
pliable members of congress that the Wheeling Legislature ” 
was the real Legislature of Virginia, and that its consent filled 
the requirements of the constitution ; but such pretense was 
too palpable for a lawyer of the ability of Thaddeus Stevens, 
who was ready to go to any extreme in the monarchical policy 
of his party, without resorting to any pretense about it. He 
13 


194 


SUPERIORITY OF 


voted for the erection and admission of West Virginia as a 
separate State upon the following startling theory, which he 
boldly proclaimed : 

'‘None of the States now in rebellion are entitled to the 
protection of the constitution. These proceedings are in 
virtue of the laws of war. We may admit West Virginia as a 
new State, not by virtue of any provision of the constitution, 
but under our absolute power which the laws of war give us in 
the circumstances in which we are placed. I shall vote for 
this bill upon that theory, and upon that alone. I will not 
stultify myself by supposing that we have any warrant in the 
constitution for this proceeding.” 

The convenient theory that war released the dominant 
party from its obligations to observe the provisions of the con¬ 
stitution came into common practice, and even the rascals en¬ 
gaged in the plunder of the public treasury successfully raised 
the cry that it was treasonable, and highly detrimental to the 
" public safety,” to investigate their schemes of plunder, or 
in any way criticise the policy of the administration, " in times 
of war.” Whatever seemed necessary to enable the Republican 
party to maintain its hold upon the government was impu¬ 
dently justified as a measure of " military necessity,” which 
the “public safety” required. The dangerous monarchical 
drift of Republican policy alarmed the Democrats, and even 
many thoughtful Republicans. Two of the ablest lawyers 
and purest patriots in the United States Senate, Mr. Cowan 
and Mr. Trumbull, voted against the admission of West 
Virginia, and were forced to sever their connection with the 
party that defiantly repudiated the constitution. Citizens 
who raised the cry of alarm, and honestly endeavored to exer¬ 
cise freedom of speech and of the press in arousing their 
fellow-citizens to an appreciation of the then existing danger 
to republican institutions, were arbitrarily arrested and im¬ 
prisoned, newspaper offices were seized and destroyed, and 
public meetings at which public grievances were openly dis¬ 
cussed were dispersed. Prof. Johnston, in his work entitled 
“American Politics,” at page 192, says : 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


195 


is certain that the summary arrests and imprisonments 
in United States forts, the seizures of newspapers, and the 
dispersions of public meetings, which followed the suspension 
of the writ of habeas corpus, did much to increase the oppo¬ 
sition vote for a time/’ 

It was for exposing and denouncing such monarchical meas¬ 
ures as are mentioned in this chapter, and the perversion of 
the war power to partisan purposes, at a public meeting in a 
State not in rebellion, that Mr. Vallandigham, one of the most 
prominent Democratic members of congress, was arrested 
by a squad of soldiers at his home in Dayton, Ohio, and 
forcibly carried off to Cincinnati, where he was put through 
the form of trial before a military commission, which con¬ 
demned him and sentenced him to imprisonment in such for¬ 
tress as the commanding officer of the department should 
designate. Fort Warren was designated ; but President Lin¬ 
coln modified the sentence so as to send Mr. Vallandigham 
within the rebel lines, with the order that he should not 
return until the close of the war. This whole outrageous 
proceeding was in plain violation of Articles V. and VI. of the 
constitution. Mr. Vallandigham was not in the army or navy, 
but was a civilian resident within a State not in rebellion, in 
which the civil courts were open for the trial of offenders; 
and, yet, for honest opposition to a Republican administration 
that had gone far beyond the Federalists in the exercise of 
monarchical powers, he was deprived of trial by jury and 
subjected to the farce of a trial by military court; and his 
sentence was unprecedented and unauthorized by any resem¬ 
blance of law. Horatio Seymour, then Governor of New York, 
said: 

‘‘If this proceeding is approved by the government and 
sanctioned by the people, it is not merely a step towards rev¬ 
olution, it is revolution; it will not only lead to military 
despotism, it establishes military despotism. . . . Having 
given it (the administration) a generous support in the con¬ 
duct of the war, we now pause to see what kind of a govern¬ 
ment it is for which we are asked to pour out our blood and 


196 


SUPERIORITY OF 


treasure. The action of the administration will determine, 
in the minds of more than one-half of the people of the Loyal 
States, whether this war is waged to put down rebellion in the 
South or to destroy free institutions at the North.” 

The opening of the Presidential campaign of 1864 was 
preceded by a period of weariness and gloom amongst the 
American people of all parties, in all sections of the country. 
Of that period Mr. Blaine says : 

^^The war had been prolonged beyond the expectation of 
the country; the loss of blood and treasure had been prodi¬ 
gious ; the rebels still flaunted their flag along the Tennessee 
and the Kappahannock; the public debt was growing to 
enormous proportions; new levies of troops were necessary; 
the end could not yet be seen; and all these trials and sac¬ 
rifices and uncertainties had their natural effect upon the 
temper of the public and upon the fortunes of the war.” 

These influences affected people of all parties with an 
earnest desire for a speedy, honorable termination of the war, 
except such people as were making personal or political profit 
by having the war continued. Strong as the considerations 
mentioned by Mr. Blaine were, there were others of a far more 
serious character operating forcibly upon the minds of Dem¬ 
ocrats, which made the members of that party especially 
desirous of peace upon any honorable terms that did not 
involve a dissolution of the Dniou. They felt that the time 
had come in the progress of monarchical development when 
republican government was practically supplanted by a mil¬ 
itary despotism; when freedom of speech and of the press 
was suppressed by an arbitrary hand; when no citizen outside 
of the ranks of the Kepublican party was safe from abuse, 
seizure and imprisonment, without any means of civil redress; 
and when the party in power had got beyond the point of 
hesitation at any act, however violent and unconstitutional, 
that enabled them to tighten their grasp upon the government 
and the people. It was plain to the Democrats that there 
was neither constitutional authority nor any sort of military 
necessity for the violent dismemberment of Virginia, and that 


DEMOCRAIIG ADMINISTRATION. 


197 


the real motive for the proceeding was a gain of Eepuhlican 
members of congress. It was plain to them that there was no 
military advantage to be gained by the abolition of slavery in 
the District of Columbia and the Territories, or by the procla¬ 
mation of freedom to the slaves in the seceded States; and 
that the Republicans were simply taking advantage of the 
exigencies of war and of the patriotism of the people to carry 
out their partisan measures. It was plain to them that the 
arbitrary arrests of members of their party, and the suppres¬ 
sion of their newspapers, were simply designed to overawe and 
intimidate citizens who opposed the monarchical policy of the 
party in power ; and that it was a bald pretense to attempt to 
justify such conduct as necessary war measures. It was plain 
to them that the Republican leaders were prepared to carry 
their pretensions of military necessity ’’ to any extreme that 
was necessary to retain the control of the government in their 
own hands. Thoroughly impressed as the Democrats were 
with the well-founded belief that the war powers of the admin¬ 
istration were being used for the overthrow of their l)arty, 
and the subversion of republican institutions, their National 
Convention met at Chicago on the 29th of August, 1864. Great 
political capital has been made in all subsequent campaigns out 
of the alleged fact that that convention denounced the war 
as a failure.” There is not a sentence in the platform adopted 
by that convention that is in the least degree discreditable 
to any member of the Democratic party. It is a plain and 
manly declaration of grievances and of principles, and there is 
not a sentence in it that can be tortured into the expression 
of an unpatriotic sentiment. The following is the platform in 
full, to wit: 

^‘Resolved, That in the future, as in the past, we will 
adhere with unswerving fidelity to the Union, under the con¬ 
stitution, as the only solid foundation of our strength, security, 
and happiness as a people, and as a framework of government 
equally conducive to the welfare and prosperity of all the 
States, both Northern and Southern. 


198 


SUPERIORITY OF 


Resolvedy That this convention does explicitly declare, as 
the sense of the American people, that after four years of 
failure to restore the Union by the experiment of war, during 
which, under the pretense of a military necessity of a war 
power higher than the constitution, the constitution itself 
has been disregarded in every part, and public liberty and 
private right alike trodden down, and the material prosperity 
of the country essentially impaired, justice, humanity, liberty, 
and the public welfare demand that immediate efforts be 
made for a cessation of hostilities, with a view to an ultimate 
convention of all the States, or other peaceable means, to the 
end that, at the earliest practicable moment, peace may be 
restored on the basis of the federal union of all the States. 

Resolved, That the direct interference of the military 
authority of the United States in the recent elections held in 
Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, and Delaware, was a shame¬ 
ful violation of the constitution ; and the repetition of such 
acts in the approaching election will be held as revolutionary, 
and resisted with all the means and power under our control. 

Resolvedj That the aim and object of the Democratic 
party is to preserve the Federal Union and the rights of the 
States unimpaired ; and they hereby declare that they consider 
the administrative usurpation of extraordinary and dangerous 
powers not granted by the constitution, the subversion of the 
civil by the military law in States not in insurrection, the 
arbitrary military arrest, imprisonment, trial, and sentence of 
American citizens in States where civil law exists in full force, 
the suppression of freedom of speech and of the press, the 
denial of the right of asylum, the open and avowed disregard 
of State rights, the employment of unusual test-oaths, and 
the interference with and denial of the right of the people to 
bear arms in their defense, as calculated to prevent a restora¬ 
tion of the Union and the perpetuation of a government deriv¬ 
ing its just powers from the consent of the governed. 

“ Resolved, That the shameful disregard of the administra¬ 
tion of its duty in respect to our fellow-citizens who now are, 
and long have been, prisoners of war, in a suffering condition, 
deserves the severest reprobation, on the score alike of public 
policy and common humanity. 

Resolved, That the sympathy of the Democratic party is 
heartily and earnestly extended to the soldiery of our army 
and the sailors of our navy, who are and have been in the field 
and on the sea under the flag of their country ; and, in the 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


199 


event of onr attaining power, they will receive all the care 
and protection, regard and kindness, that the brave soldiers of 
the Eepublic have so nobly earned/’ 

This platform indicates the monarchical policies then in 
practice by the Republicans, which awakened the alarm and 
aroused the opposition of the Democrats; and it will be found 
interesting to compare this platform with the first Democratic 
platform, adopted in 1800, and found in Chapter III of this 
book. Nothing, however, will more forcibly illustrate the 
fundamental differences between Democracy and Federalism 
than a contrast of Jefferson’s and Madison’s treatment of the 
New England Federalists, with the treatment of the Dem¬ 
ocrats who were aroused to an intense political opposition 
to Lincoln’s administration. A reference to the course of 
opposition pursued by the Federalists of New England from 
1802 until 1815, as related in Chapter XIII of this book, 
will show that Jefferson and Madison had far greater provo¬ 
cation and cause to exercise arbitrary powers of arrest and 
imprisonment, during their respective administrations, than 
Lincoln had for the exercise of such powers during the War 
of the Rebellion. There is not an argument used by Mr. 
Lincoln in justification of the arbitrary arrest and military 
trial and unprecedented sentence of Vallandigham that would 
not have justified President Madison in the arrest and punish¬ 
ment of the governors, legislators, judges, and the bulk of the 
membership of the Federalist party in New England, during 
the period of ^^the Second War of Independence.” No Dem¬ 
ocratic legislature, or convention, or town meeting, or indi¬ 
vidual stump speaker, in any Northern State, ever denounced 
the War of the Rebellion, even at the period of its worst per¬ 
version to partisan purposes, in terms equal in hostility to the 
denunciations of the War of 1812 by the Federalist representa¬ 
tives in congress, and by Federalist legislatures, conventions 
and individuals; and this in the face of the fact that the 
former war was waged against a foreign nation, while the 
latter was carried on against a portion of our own citizens who 


200 


SUPERIORITY OF 


had the merit, at least, of believing that they had just cause 
and legal right to withdraw their respective States from the 
Federal Union. Laws similar to the Sedition Act of the 
Federalists and the Eepublican ^^Act relating to habeas cor¬ 
pus and regulating judicial proceedings in certain cases,” if 
the Democrats had been guilty of resorting to such monarchi¬ 
cal measures, would have justified Presidents Jefferson and 
Madison in the arrest and imprisonment of the bulk of the 
members of the Federalist party in New England. But such 
measures are not Democratic, and are utterly subversive of 
the republican principles of the constitution which the Dem¬ 
ocratic party was organized to maintain, and which it has 
always enforced in their anti-monarchical sense and meaning. 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


201 


CHAPTER XVI. 

FEDERALISM SUPREME.—THE PERIOD OF RECOl^’STRUCTION 
AHD EXTREME CORRUPTION. 

The period of Reconstruction covers the entire time from 
the close of the War of the Rebellion until the close of Presi¬ 
dent Grant’s administration ; and it must always be regarded 
as the most shameful period of American political history. 
It was pre-eminently the period of Republican supremacy, 
and yet republican government was entirely suspended in the 
South, and the will of the people commanded but feeble 
respect in the North. During most of the time the Repub¬ 
lican party controlled nearly all of the State governments, 
and completely controlled the federal government in all of 
its branches until the meeting of the Forty-fourth Con¬ 
gress, December 6th, 1875, in which the Democrats had a 
majority in the lower House. It was the millenium of rings, 
the harvest time of corporations and monopolies, the golden 
age of unblushing corruptions and gigantic frauds. Nothing 
but the patriotic patience of a wronged people and the ex¬ 
haustless resources of a fruitful and fresh country could have 
brought the United States through that terrible period with¬ 
out shipwreck. The Northern people were needlessly bur¬ 
dened that the South might be kept prostrate, and the 
Republican party retain its violent hold upon the govern¬ 
ment. The American people will probably never fully realize 
how narrowly they escaped the loss of even the forms of 
republican government during that most dangerous period of 
their eventful history. This was the period referred to by 
Colonel Ingersoll in his eulogy upon Conkling, ‘^when the 
credit of the nation was loaned to individuals, when claims 


202 


SUPERIORITY OF 


were thick as leaves in June, when the amendment of a 
statute, the change of a single word, meant millions, and when 
empires were given to corporations.’’ It was the period of 
the Credit Mobilier, of the Emma Mine Swindle, of Black 
Friday, of the Salary Grab, of the Sanborn Frauds, of the 
Venezuela Scandal, of the San Domingo Job, of the Whiskey 
Eing Conspiracy, of Sales of Post Traderships, of the Freed- 
men’s Bureau and the Freedmen’s Savings Bank, of the 
‘^Virginius” Disgrace, of Army Frauds, Navy Frauds, Pen¬ 
sion Office Frauds, Custom House Frauds, Mail Service 
Frauds, of Government Printing Jobs, of Lobbyism, of 
Unblushing Bribery, of Official Defalcation, of Boss Shep- 
perdism, of Government Building Jobs, of Land Grants, of 
Depreciated Government Currency, of Demonetization of 
Silver, of the Jay Cooke Panic, of Bankruptcy, of Nepotism, 
of Johnny Davenportism, of Belknap and Babcock and Mur¬ 
phy, of Csesarism,” of Peculation, Speculation and Demor¬ 
alization. It would be a task to enumerate the frauds and 
jobs and schemes of that disgraceful period, and extend this 
little book to the dimensions of a prodigious volume if any 
attempt were made to treat of them in detail. The boldest 
rascalities were ‘^white-washed,” and the boldest crimes con¬ 
cealed and excused. It was the period of “ Keconstruction,” 
of Congressional Usurpation, of Grant’s Presidency, and of 
Blaine’s Speakership. 

When the rebel armies surrendered, and the soldiers of the 
North and the South, returned to their homes, the people 
throughout the Union innocently supposed that the war had 
come to an end ; but the Eepublican politicians took an 
entirely different view of the matter. They said there was a 
vital question still to be settled involving the relations existing 
between the federal government and the seceding States. The 
Democrats could see no difficulty about the matter. They 
said in 1865, just as Eepublicans and Democrats alike had 
said in 1861, that the “ deplorable civil war ” had been 
“ forced upon the country by the Disunionists of the Southern 


DE3I0CRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


203 


States,” and that it had been waged on the part of the fed¬ 
eral government to preserve the Union, with all the dignity, 
equality and rights of the several States unimpaired;” in 
fact, to rescue the governments of the Southern States from 
the Disunionists, who had held them under the dominion of 
armed insurrection ; and now that the insurrection had been 
quelled, and those States had been rescued from its dominion, 
it seemed plain that their equality ” with other States would 
be seriously impaired ” if their people were not permitted 
to send representatives to congress, and choose their State, 
county, township and municipal officers, like the people of 
any other State. The Democrats were sustained in this view, 
not only by the Crittenden Kesolution, but by the Act of Con¬ 
gress of July 22d, 1861, expressly declaring the purposes for 
which the President was authorized to call for volunteers, 
and even more directly by President Lincoln’s Proclamation 
of Emancipation, in which it was declared, referring to the 
date of January 1st, 1863, that : 

^‘The fact that any State, or the people thereof, shall on 
that day be in good faith represented in the congress of the 
United States, by members chosen thereto at elections wherein 
a majority of the qualified voters of such State shall have 
participated, shall, in the absence of strong countervailing 
testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State, 
and the people thereof, are not then in rebellion against the 
United States.” 

The war was conducted throughout upon the principle that 
when rebellion ceased, either voluntarily or by coercion of 
the insurgents, every State rescued from its dominion was to 
resume its constitutional relations to the federal government 
and to the other States. No one denied the right of the 
federal government to punish any or all persons who had 
violated its laws or resisted its authority ; but the Democrats 
denied that the constitutional relation of any State to the 
general government could be destroyed, either by the act of 
its people or by any act of congress. It can be done only by 


204 


SUPERIORITY OF 


the harmonious action of all the States. Democrats and 
Republicans agreed that the ordinances of secession were 
utterly void and of no legal effect whatever ; and the Demo¬ 
crats claimed that the necessary and only logical result of 
such principle was, that the constitutional relations between 
the seceding States and the federal government continued 
in full legal force throughout the war ; and, consequently, 
when rebellion ceased, there was no further interruption of 
those relations, and the qualified voters” of each State had 
the right to elect their local officers and choose representatives 
in congress. 

The Republicans, with the exception of a few radicals of 
the Sumner and Stevens type, seemed to acquiesce in the 
Democratic view so long as the rebel armies were in the field ; 
but when the rebellion had been suppressed and there was no 
further use for Democratic soldiers, the Republican politicians 
saw that it would be ruinous to them politically to allow the 
seceded States to resume their constitutional relations with 
the federal government. They would send senators and 
representatives to congress who would not be Republicans, 
and they would cast their electoral votes against the Repub¬ 
lican candidate for the Presidency. Hence the Republican 
politicians said these seceding States would have to be recon¬ 
structed,” so that their party could control them. It was a 
matter of absolute necessity for the Republican party to con¬ 
jure up some plan for the suppression or control of the votes 
of the Southern States, otherwise that party could not long 
continue in control of the government. They floundered 
about amongst inconsistent and conflicting theories, until they 
gradually came up (or, more properly, went down) practically 
to the doctrine upon which Thaddeus Stevens justified his 
vote on the admission of West Virginia, viz.: that although 
the seceding States were never out of the Union, the rebellion 
of their inhabitants suspended the operation of the constitu¬ 
tion within their limits, and its operation and benefits could 
not be restored except upon such terms as the federal gov- 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


205 


eminent should dictate. True enough, the doctrine of Mr. 
Stevens was based upon '^the laws of war/’ and it was only 
the existence of a state of war that Justified, in his mind, the 
exercise of absolute power,” regardless of the constitution. 
The higher law doctrine of absolute power,” even as claimed 
by Mr. Stevens, was totally inapplicable to a condition of 
peace ; and the Confederate government had collapsed, its 
armies had surrendered, and no hostile arm was raised from 
the Potomac to the Rio Grande, on March 2d, 1867, when 
congress passed the Reconstruction Act over President John¬ 
son’s veto. It is not pretended that any such act is within 
the purview of constitutional legislation by congress; it could 
be Justified only upon the doctrine of absolute power ” inci¬ 
dent, as Mr. Stevens contended, to a state of war. 

How could that doctrine be applied in time of peace, nearly 
two years after every rebel soldier had laid down his arms and 
gone home ? That seems to be a difficult question ; but the 
political acrobats who then led the Republican party had no 
great trouble in surmounting the difficulty. Their process, 
like the solution of the general run of puzzles, was simple 
enough, when you understand it. They simply adopted the 
convenient fiction that the imr teas not yet ended, although 
nearly two years had elapsed since Lee’s surrender. This 
statement will naturally be accepted by the younger genera¬ 
tion of readers as exaggeration, but it is nothing of the kind, 
as witness the following extract from an official opinion of 
Attorney-General E. R. Hoar, of date May 31st, 1869, to wit: 

^^The Act of March 2d, 1867, was a legislative declaration 
that the war which sprang from the Rebellion was not, to all 
intents and purposes, ended; and that it should be held to 
continue until State governments, republican in form, and 
subordinate to the constitution and laws, should be estab¬ 
lished.” 

Having hit upon the ingenious fiction that an actual state 
of peace was in law ” a state of war, all constitutional ques¬ 
tions were readily put aside, and there was nothing in the 


206 


SUPERIORITY OF 


way of the absolute power ’’ of the Eepublican two-thirds 
majority in congress. They could adopt whatever measures 
were necessary to keep their party in power, by suppressing or 
controlling the votes of the people of the Southern States, 
who were exhausted by war and helpless. Having determined, 
without regard to the actual facts, that the people of the 
Southern States were still in rebellion two years after Lee’s 
surrender, and that those States must be reconstructed,” 
the Eepublican majority in congress proceeded to adopt the 
Eeconstruction Act, which they promptly passed over the 
President’s veto, on March 2d, 1867. It created five mili¬ 
tary districts, the first consisting of Virginia ; the second, of 
North Carolina and South Carolina ; the third, of Georgia, 
Florida and Alabama ; the fourth, of Mississippi and Arkan¬ 
sas ; and the fifth, of Louisiana and Texas. Over each of 
these districts the President was authorized to appoint a com¬ 
manding ofllcer, not below the rank of brigadier-general, and 
furnish him v/ith sufficient military force. The commanding 
officer was to protect all persons in their rights of person 
and property, to suppress insurrection, disorder and violence,” 
either by military commission, or by allowing the local civil 
courts to act; and it was provided that all interference,, 
under color of State authority, with the exercise of military 
authority under this act, shall be null and void.” Conventions 
were authorized to be held in each of the several States, 
consisting of delegates elected by such citizens as were not dis¬ 
franchised by authority of the federal government for parti¬ 
cipation in the Eebellion ; and such conventions were author¬ 
ized to form constitutions for their respective States, which 
were to give the elective franchise to such citizens as were 
allowed by this act to vote for delegates, and were to be rati¬ 
fied by a popular vote of such citizens. Such constitutions 
were then to be severally approved by the federal congress, 
after which the first State Legislature chosen under each 
State constitution was to ratify the then proposed fourteenth 
amendment of the constitution of the United States, and 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


207 


when that amendment had become part of the constitution, 
the State complying with all these conditions was to be 
entitled to representation in the federal congress. Until thus 

reconstructed,” the civil governments in said several States 
were to be deemed provisional only, and in all respects sub¬ 
ject to the paramount authority of the United States at any 
time to abolish, modify, control or supersede the same.” 

Nobody pretends that the constitution ever delegated to 
the federal government any such authority over a State, or 
its inhabitants, as was provided by, and exercised by virtue 
of, this Reconstruction Act. In order to carry out any such 
measure, the Republican politicians had to resort to the policy, 
then familiar to them, of setting aside the constitution when¬ 
ever it stood in the way of the execution of their schemes for 
continuing in control of the government. 

The reader may have observed that Tennessee is not in¬ 
cluded within any one of the five military districts created by 
the Reconstruction Act, although it was one of the States 
that had adopted an ordinance of secession. Why was this ? 
Simply because it had previously been sufficiently ‘^recon¬ 
structed,” during President Lincoln’s administration, upon an 
entirely different plan, which had been consummated while 
the war was still in progress. When the war had actually 
come to an end, and the armies on both sides had been dis¬ 
banded, President Johnson attempted to apply to the other 
seceded States the same plan of restoring their several relations 
to the federal government that President Lincoln had applied 
to Tennessee. Prof. Johnston, in his article on “ Reconstruc¬ 
tion ” in Lalor’s Cyclopaedia, shows very clearly that Lincoln’s 
plan, which the Republican majority in congress allowed to 
stand without disturbance or question, was “ identical ” with 
President Johnson’s plan, which was angrily and violently 
repudiated and overthrown by the same Republican major¬ 
ity in congress. The fact is, that the Republicans became 
involved in a lawless maze of inconsistencies when they deter¬ 
mined to ignore the constitution, and the constitutional status 


208 


SUPERIORITY OF 


of the Southern States, in their scheme of military reconstruc¬ 
tion. Prof. Johnston, who attempts to sustain the indefensible 
Eepublican policy of reconstruction ” outside of the constitu¬ 
tion, admits the radically contradictory” character of such 
measures, and gives the following example, to wit : 

^‘Unless the Pierpont government was the legal govern¬ 
ment of Virginia in 1861, West Virginia is not, and never has 
been, a State of the Union ; and yet, if the Pierpont govern¬ 
ment was legal in time of war, its reconstruction by congress 
in a time of profound peace was unwarranted by any law. 
But both of these contradictions were accepted. West Vir¬ 
ginia was retained as a State, and its members even voted on 
the reconstruction of the parent State of Virginia.” 

Not content with the congressional exercise of absolute 
power ” in framing the Act of March 2d, 1867, the Eepublican 
majority in the next congress passed a supplementary act on 
March 19th, 1867, of which Prof. Johnston says : 

Its essential point of difference was that the work of re¬ 
construction was now taken out of the hands of the State, 
and given to the military commander. In brief, it was, so far 
as the State was concerned, involuntary reconstruction.” 

Such of the voters of the several States, within the five 
military districts, as were not disfranchised by authority 
of the federal government, were to be registered by registra¬ 
tion officers appointed by the several military commanders. 
Under this law, Mr. Stanbery, who was Attorney-General of 
the United States under President Johnson’s administration, 
furnished an opinion that the boards of registration were 
bound to accept the oaths of persons applying to be registered, 
as to their right to vote. This led to a further supplement to 
the Eeconstruction Act, which was passed July 19th, 1867, 
enlarging the powers of the military commanders, who were 
empowered thereby to suspend, remove and replace any State 
officer who should hinder reconstruction, and the like power 
was conferred upon Gen. Grant. This supplement further 
authorized the registration boards to add names to or strike 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


209 


names from the registration lists; and provided that no 
district commander or his appointees should be bound in his 
action by the opinion of any civil officer of the United States,” 
thus placing the arbitrary judgment of the military com¬ 
manders, and their appointees, above the legal opinion of the 
chief law-officer of the government upon a legal question 
affecting the construction of a statute ! 

Still another supplementary patch was put upon the Eecon- 
struction Act on March 11th, 1868, whereby reconstruction 
elections were allowed to be decided, and State constitutions 
ratified, by less than half of the registered voters. Taken 
altogether the congressional scheme of reconstruction stands 
without a parallel as a piece of unstatesmanlike legislative 
patchwork. Its authors hesitated at nothing in perfect¬ 
ing a system of monarchical measures unparalleled in modern 
Prussia or Kussia; which had no pretension of a constitu¬ 
tional foundation, and which rested solely on that absolute 
power” which was claimed to arise out of military neces¬ 
sity ” in times of war. The Federalists had never attempted 
anything in the monarchical line approaching the enormity of 
these monstrous reconstruction measures, which the Repub¬ 
lican majority in congress passed over the vetoes of a Presi¬ 
dent chosen by their own party. 

Tyrannical, unprecedented and utterly indefensible as the 
jumble of reconstruction legislation was, its practical execution 
covers the darkest period to be found in the history of any 
part of the world during the nineteenth century. The like of 
it was never known amongst any people pretending to take 
rank among civilized nations. Prof. Johnston, whose political 
writings all emanate from an anti-Democratic standpoint, 
gives the following general account of the practical operation 
of the ^‘reconstructed” State governments, established by 
virtue of the “absolute power” of the Republican majority in 
Congress, to wit: 

“In almost all the States the downward career of the 
reconstructed governments was short and swift. Until the 


210 


SUPERIORITY OF 


negro legislators learned the machinery of politics, they sub¬ 
mitted with patience to the guidance of white leaders, gen¬ 
erally Northern immigrants, or ‘ carpet-baggers,’and these 
endeavored with considerable success to keep up at least a 
semblance of the decent methods to which they had been 
accustomed. But the negro showed an astonishing quickness 
in learning the tactics of politics, in grasping the shell w^hile 
ignoring the kernel. Points of order, parliamentary rulings, 
filibustering methods, the means of putting fraud into a fair 
legislative form, almost immediately became as familiar to the 
negroes as to any other experts in legislation ; and then the 
State treasuries lay at the mercy of a race whose incorrigible 
and notorious vice, during slavery, had always been theft. 
JYo storming force ever made quicker work of a captured city. 
Most of the ^carpet-baggers’ yielded to the current and took 
a share of the spoils. The impoverished treasuries were in¬ 
stantly swept clean. The issue of bonds was then resorted to, 
except in States like Mississippi, whose bonds were unsalable 
through previous repudiation ; and in this process the lion’s 
share fell to the more expert white leaders. In one State, 
South Carolina, the debt rose from about $5,000,000 in 1868 
to nearly $30,000,000 in 1872; and about $20,000,000 of this 
amount were issued by the governor by virtue of a legislative 
permission to issue $2,000,000. In almost any State, a lobby 
rich enough to purchase the legislators could secure the pas¬ 
sage of an act issuing State bonds in aid of a railroad, sup¬ 
plemented by a subsequent act releasing the State’s lien on 
the road, the whole making up an absolute gift of the money. 
But the land, which must ultimately be taxed for the pay¬ 
ment of such gifts, remained in the hands of the whites. 
Under universal suffrage, made harsher by a partial white 
disfranchisement, the whites were helpless, so long as they 
observed the forms of law ; and in the conflict of interests the 
forms of law went down.” 

Such is Prof. Johnston’s account; but it required the 
trenchant pen of Judge Black to even partially picture in 
words the enormity of the outrages practiced upon the 
Southern people, that the Republican party might retain its 
violent and merciless hold upon the government. Here is an 
extract from that great Democrat’s essay on ^^The Great 
Fraud of 1876 ” : 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


211 


The people would not have been wholly crushed either by 
the soldier or the negro, if both had not been used to fasten 
upon them the domination of another class of persons which 
was altogether unendurable. These were called carpet-bag¬ 
gers, not because the word is descriptive or euphonious, but 
because they have no other name whereby they are known 
among the children of men. They were unprincipled adven¬ 
turers who sought their fortunes in the South by plundering 
the disarmed and defenseless people; some of them were the 
dregs of the Federal army, the meanest of the camp follow¬ 
ers ; many were fugitives from Northern justice ; the best 
of them were those who went down after the peace, ready for 
any deed of shame that was safe and profitable. These, com¬ 
bining with a few treacherous ^scalawags,’ and some leading 
negroes to serve as decoys for the rest, and backed by the 
power of the general government, became the strongest body 
of thieves that ever pillaged a people. Their moral grade was 
far lower, and yet they were much more powerful, than the 
robber-bands that infested Germany after the close of the 
Thirty Years’ War. They swarmed over all the States, from 
the Potomac to the Gulf, and settled in hordes, not with intent 
to remain there, but merely to feed on the substance of a 
prostrate and defenseless people. They took whatever came 
within their reach, intruding themselves into all private cor¬ 
porations, assumed the functions of all offices, including the 
courts of justice, and in many places they even ^ran the 
churches.’ By force and fraud, they either controlled all 
elections or else prevented elections from being held. They 
returned sixty of themselves to one Congress, and ten or 
twelve of the most ignorant and venal among them were at the 
same time thrust into the Senate. 

This false representation of a people by strangers and 
enemies, who had not even a bona-fide residence among them, 
was the bitterest of all mockeries. There was no show of 
truth or honor about it. The pretended representative was 
always ready to vote for any measure that would oppress and 
enslave his so-called constituents ; his hostility was uncon¬ 
cealed, and he lost no opportunity to do them injury. Under 
all these wrongs and indignities, the Caucasian men of the 
South were prudent, if not patient. No brave people, accus¬ 
tomed to be free, ever endured oppression so peacefully or 
so wisely. The Irish, with less provocation, were in a state 
of perpkual turbulence ; the Poles were always conspiring 


212 


SUPERIORITY OF 


against the milder rule of their Eussian masters; but Southern 
men ‘made haste slowly’ to recover their liberties. They 
could not break the shackles of usurped control; some of the 
links gradually rusted and fell away of themselves. The gross 
impolicy of desolating the fairest half of the country impressed 
itself more and more upon the Northern mind ; the mere 
expense in money of maintaining this vulgar tyranny became 
disgusting. The negroes gradually opened their eyes to the 
truth that they were as badly imposed upon as the whites. 
With consummate skill, the natural leaders of the people 
hoarded every fresh acquisition of self-governing power. State 
after State deposed its corrupt governors, by impeachment or 
otherwise, and brought its official criminals to justice, until all 
were redeemed except Florida, South Carolina and Louisiana. 
A more particular look at the condition of the last-named 
State is needed, because it was the principal theater of the 
‘ Great Fraud. ’ 

“The agricultural and commercial wealth of Louisiana 
made her a strong temptation to the carpet-baggers. Those 
vultures snitfed the prey from afar ; and, as soon as the war 
was over, they swooped down upon her in flocks that dark¬ 
ened the air. The State was delivered into their hands by the 
military authorities, but the officers imposed some restraints 
upon their lawless cupidity. They hailed with delight the 
advent of negro suffrage, because to them it was merely a 
legalized'method of stuffing the ballot-box, and they stuffed 
it. Thenceforth, and down to a very recent period, they 
gorged themselves without let or hindrance. The depreda¬ 
tions they committed were frightful. They appropriated, on 
one pretense or another, whatever they could lay their hands 
on, and then pledged to themselves the credit of the State for 
uncounted millions more. The public securities ran down 
to half-price, and still they put their fraudulent bonds on the 
market and sold them for what they would fetch. The owners 
of the best real estate, in town or country, were utterly impov¬ 
erished, because the burdens upon it were heavier than the 
rents would discharge. During the last ten years, the city of 
New Orleans paid, in the form, of direct taxes, more than the 
estimated value of all the property within her limits, and still 
has a debt of equal amount unpaid. It is not likely that other 
parts of the State suffered less. The extent of their spoliation 
can hardly be calculated; but the testimony of the carpet-bag¬ 
gers themselves against one another, the reports of committees 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


213 


sent by Congress to investigate the subject, and other infor¬ 
mation from sources entirely authentic, make it safe to say 
that a general conflagration, sweeping over all the State from 
one end to the other, and destroying every building and every 
article of personal property, would have been a visitation of 
mercy in comparison to the curse of such government. This 
may seem at first blush like gross exaggeration, because it is 
•worse than anything that misrule ever did before. 

“ The greediest of Roman proconsuls left something to the 
provinces they wasted ; the Norman did not strip the Saxon 
quite to the skin; the Puritans under Cromwell did not 
utterly desolate Ireland. Their rapacity was confined to the 
visible things which they could presently handle and use. 
They could not take what did not exist. But the American 
carpet-bagger has an invention unknown to those old-fashioned 
robbers, which increases his stealing-power as much as the 
steam-engine adds to the mechanical force of mere natural 
muscles. He makes negotiable bonds of the State, signs and 
seals them ‘according to the forms of law,’ sells them, con¬ 
verts the proceeds to his own use, and then defies justice ‘ to 
go behind the returns.’ By this device his felonious fingers 
are made long enough to reach into the pockets of posterity ; 
he lays his lien on property yet uncreated ; he anticipates 
the labor of coming ages and appropriates the fruits of it in 
advance; he coins the industry of future generations into 
cash, and snatches the inheritance from children whose fathers 
are yet unborn. Projecting his cheat forward by this contri¬ 
vance, and operating latterly at the same time, he gathers an 
amount of plunder which no country in the world would have 
yielded to the Goth or the Vandal.” 

In a recently published volume entitled “ Governor Cham¬ 
berlain’s Administration in South Carolina,” ably written by 
a friend of that best of the carpet-bag governors, the following 
statement appears, to wit : 


“ The new State officers took office July 9th, 1868. In the 
first Legislature, which assembled on the same day, the Senate 
consisted of thirty-three members, of whom nine were negroes, 
and but seven were Democrats. The House of Representatives 
consisted of one hundred and twenty-four members, of whom 
forty-eight were white men, fourteen only of these being 


214 


SUPERIORITY OF 


Democrats. The whole Legislature thus consisted of seventy- 
two white and eighty-five colored members. At this date the 
entire funded debt of South Carolina amounted to $5,407,- 
306.27. At the close of the four years (two terms) of Gover¬ 
nor E. K. Scott’s administration, December, 1872, the funded 
debt of the State amounted to $18,515,033.91, including past 
due and unpaid interest for three years. During the period 
of this administration, no public works of any appreciable 
importance had been begun or completed. The entire increase 
of about thirteen million dollars may be said to represeyit 
only increased extravagant and profligate current expendi¬ 
tures” 

The other reconstructed ” States suffered similar pillage 
from the carpet-bag governments, and some of them even to 
a larger extent than South Carolina. The favorite device 
practiced by the plunderers was for a sufficient number of 
them to associate together to secure a charter of incorpo¬ 
ration, generally for a railroad company. They would then 
issue their corporate bonds, and bribe a sufficient number of 
carpet-bag and negro legislators to pass an act for the indorse¬ 
ment or guarantee of these bonds by the State. Then they 
would sell the bonds, which were marketable by reason of 
the State’s guarantee ; and when the promoters of the pre¬ 
tended enterprise had got the money on the sale of the 
bonds the railroad project was dropped, and the bond-holders 
had to look to the State for payment of their bonds. Such 
of the negro legislators as had taken their bribes in the stock 
of these paper corporations were left in the lurch. By means 
of such schemes, and by unrestrained extravagance in the cur¬ 
rent expenses of the State governments, the carpet-baggers and 
their negro dupes added to the debts and liabilities of the 
several reconstructed ” States, outside of South Carolina, 
the following enormous burdens, to wit: Alabama, the sum 
of $26,705,781 ; Arkansas, the sum of $15,223,386 ; Florida, 
$15,185,455 ; Georgia, $32,912,250 ; Louisiana, $28,506,474; 
Mississippi, $1,367,449 ; North Carolina, $19,107,522 ; Ten¬ 
nessee, $5,277,129 ; Texas, $12,629,021; Virginia, $6,329,523. 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


215 


It will be observed that Mississippi, by reason of her discredit 
in the money market, escaped from liability on guaranteed 
bonds : and her plunderers had to be content with the visible 
things they could grab, without being able to reach their 
‘^felonious fingers into the pockets of posterity.” The prog¬ 
ress made by the carpet-bag governments, in the matter of cur¬ 
rent expenses, is strikingly illustrated by the yearly increase 
in legislative expenses in Louisiana, for which $170,000 was 
suflScient in 1866 ; in 1867, $200,000 was required ; in 1868, 
$250,000 ; in 1869, $380,000 ; in 1870, $593,000; in 1871, 
$647,000; and in 1872, when the session continued only 
sixty days, the law-makers ‘^managed to expend in salaries, 
mileage, printing, stationery, and other comforts, the sum of 
$958,956.” By this time dissensions had arisen amongst the 
band of thieves who had been sustained by the federal soldiery 
during their plunder of a prostrate State. Governor War- 
moth, a native of Illinois, whose checkered career had landed 
him in New Orleans penniless at the close of the war, had 
reached the position of chief executive of Louisiana ; and in 
1872 he had amassed a half a million dollars. He then began 
to pose as a reformer, and, in a message, exposed the profligacy 
of the Legislature of 1872. He declared that the legitimate 
salaries of the members for the session of sixty days, with 
mileage added at the rate of twenty cents a mile each way^ 
could not exceed $100,000, and that $25,000 was ample to 
cover the other proper expenses of both branches ; and, hence, 
the other $830,956 had been uselessly squandered. This fall¬ 
ing out amongst thieves, and the attitude of the federal gov¬ 
ernment towards the warring factions of plunderers, de¬ 
serves mention as well on its own account as on account of 
its results. 

In 1871, a faction headed by Packard, the United States 
marshal, Casey, collector of the port, Lowell, the postmaster, 
and Carter, a custom-house official, began open war upon 
Governor Warmoth. The leaders of this faction were fed¬ 
eral ofldcials, and they counted upon the favor of President 


216 


SUPERIORITY OF 


Grant, of whom Casey was brother-in-law. The first struggle 
brought on by the custom-house faction was for the control of 
the Republican State Conyention, in which that faction suc¬ 
ceeded by haying the conyention meet in the custom-house, 
under guard of federal troops and deputy marshals, the latter 
being custom-house employes and letter-carriers deputized for 
the occasion. Warmoth and his delegates were confronted by 
these ^‘guards ’’ and refused admission, whereupon they retired 
and held a conyention of their own. 

The custom-house faction had a majority in the lower House 
of the Legislature,and Warmoth had a majority in the Senate. 
Lieutenant-Goyernor Dunn having died, Warmoth summoned 
the Senate to meet in extra session to elect a successor, who 
would be presiding officer of the Senate. His candidate was 
a colored fellow named Pinchback, who was successful, as it 
was charged, by means of bribery. Then came a contest oyer 
the speakership of the House, which office was held at the pre¬ 
ceding session by Carter. When the extravagant sixty-day 
session, referred to heretofore, met in January, 1872, the House 
refused by a vote of 49 to 46 to approve a resolution of confi¬ 
dence in the speaker. That was followed by a vote to declare 
the chair vacant, which was ruled out of order, and an ad¬ 
journment agreed to upon Carter’s promise to resign next day, 
as the Warmoth faction alleged. Instead of Carter resigning, 
the governor, lieutenant-governor, four Warmoth senators and 
eighteen members of the House, were arrested next day by 
deputy U. S. marshals on writs issued by a U. S. commis¬ 
sioner, on a charge of conspiracy to resist the execution of 
federal laws. The custom-house faction got control of the 
House by this movement, which was never pressed after it had 
accomplished its purpose. To prevent a quorum in the Sen¬ 
ate, the same faction induced fifteen senators to go aboard 
the TJ. S. revenue cutter Wilderness^ where they were kept 
from Monday until Friday, when an order from Washington 
compelled the cutter to return to the city and unload. ” This 
enabled Warmoth to secure control, as the custom-house fac- 


DEMOGRATIQ ADMINISTRATION. 


217 


tion had apparently lost the support of the authorities at 
Washington. 

It may be interesting to know what the leaders of these 
Republican factions thought of each other. Warmoth said : 

Jim Casey is a clever fellow ; he hasn’t sense enough to be 
a bad fellow; a bad fellow must have some character; he 
hasn’t any.” Carter complimented Warmoth in this way : 

Louisiana is afflicted with worse laws and worse administra¬ 
tors thereof than can be found in ten States of the Union. 
Henry Clay Warmoth is the Boss Tweed of Louisiana, except 
that that amiable villain, with all his infamies, is a gentleman 
and a saint compared with the unscrupulous despot who fills 
the executive chair of this State.” Carter himself was an 
ex-preacher and ex-rebel colonel, who became a thoroughly 
^^reconstructed” disciple of the loyalists who then infested 
the South, and of course a party leader. 

At the November election, 1872, Kellogg was the Republi¬ 
can candidate for governor, and McEnery the Democratic 
candidate. The regular returning board, known as the War¬ 
moth or De Feriet board, returned McEnery elected by about 
7,000 majority ; but the custom-house faction, without any 
official returns from the polling places, made up a set of 
returns in favor of Kellogg. The Legislature of the custom¬ 
house faction met December 9th, 1872, although January 1st 
was the date fixed by the constitution. Postmaster Lowell 
was speaker of the House, and Pinchback, who had deserted 
Warmoth, was president of the Senate. Governor Warmoth 
was promptly impeached by these lawless gatherings, and 
thereupon Pinchback assumed the office of governor. Judge 
Elmore, a State judge, issued a writ of injunction to restrain 
Pinchback from taking charge of the executive office ; but, 
at this critical juncture, a dispatch from U. S. Attorney- 
General Williams assured Pinchback that his authority was 
recognized ly the President. 

The time was drawing near for the inauguration of the new 
governor. A meeting of citizens was held, at which a com- 


218 


SUPERIORITY OF 


mittee of one hundred representative property-holders and 
taxpayers was appointed to visit Washington to lay the matter 
before the President and congress. McEnery telegraphed the 
President to delay recognition of either claimant until the 
arrival of that committee. The Attorney-General answered 
that request as follows : Your visit with one hundred citi¬ 
zens will be unavailing so far as the President is concerned. 
His decision is made and will not he changed, and the sooner 
it is acquiesced in the sooner good order and peace will be re¬ 
stored.” This was December 10th, 1872. Early in January, 
Pinchback issued a proclamation declaring that Kellogg would 
he inaugurated, and that the custom-house Legislature would 
meet at the appointed time, but that no pretended governor 
and no pretended general assembly ” would be permitted to 
disturb the public peace. He relied upon the protection of 
the President. 

On January 4th, 1873, Kellogg and McEnery each went 
through the forms of inauguration. On the same day the U. 
S. Senate constituted a committee of inquiry into the condi¬ 
tion of affairs in Louisiana. That committee made a report 
in which the following conclusion was expressed, to wit: 

Your committee are, therefore, led to the conclusion that 
if the election held in November, 1872, be not absolutely void 
for fraud committed therein, McEnery and his associates in 
State offices, and the persons certified as members of the 
Legislature by the De Feriet board, ought to be recognized as 
the legal government of the State.” 

The committee, however, claimed that the right belonged 
to congress to order a new election, in case the November 
election should prove to be void on account of frauds, and a 
bill for that purpose was introduced, which failed to become 
a law. The custom-house faction proceeded to obtain a deci¬ 
sion of Judge Durell favorable to the Kellogg government, of 
Tvhich the Senate committee say : 

Viewed in any light in which your committee can consider 
them, the orders and injunctions made by Judge Durell in 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


219 


this cause are most reprehensible, erroneous in point of law, 
and are wholly void for want of jurisdiction ; and your com¬ 
mittee must express their sorrow and humiliation that a judge 
of the United States should have proceeded in such flagrant 
disregard of his duty, and have so far overstepped the limits 
of federal jurisdiction.’’ 

Senator Morton was a member of this committee, and, in 
commenting on this proceeding, he said : 

The conduct of Judge Durell, sitting in the circuit court 
of the United States, cannot be justified or defended. He 
grossly exceeded his jurisdiction and assumed the exercise of 
powers to which he could lay no claim, and his acts can only 
he characterized as a gross usurpation” 

The following is quoted from Judge Cooley’s edition of 

Story on the Constitution,” published in 1873 : 

‘^In the case of Louisiana in 1873, an inferior federal judge, 
without a shadow of authority, and consequently in defiance 
of law, and for that reason supported by no presumption of 
correct motives, and with scarcely a pretense of observing even 
the usual forms, by the process of his court, aided by a 
military force, installed in power a State government which 
he sided with as against rival claimants, and, in consequence 
of a pressure of business in congress precluding prompt atten¬ 
tion to the case by that body, has been enabled to sustain that 
government in power until the present time” (1873). 

Senator Trumbull said : 

Kellogg succeeded in being installed as governor through 
the usurpation of a subordinate judge, who usurped authority, 
and set up a Legislature and a government in the State of Louisi¬ 
ana. Under this order no man was permitted to enter the 
legislative halls of the State as a member unless he had a 
certificate of election from a returning board that never had a 
return before it; from a returning board that counted forged 
aflSdavits by the thousand as evidence of election. The Leg¬ 
islature thus organized in less than twenty-four hours im¬ 
peached and removed the existing governor.” 

Owing to the failure of congress to take any action in the 
matter, Mr. Kellogg was permitted to retain the oflQce, and 


220 


SUPERIORITY OF 


was sustained in his usurpation throughout the whole of 
President Grant’s second term, although his only title was the 
certificate of the self-constituted custom-house returning board 
that never had a return before it,” and the order of a federal 
judge having no jurisdiction, and whose acts in the matter 

can only be characterized as a gross usurpation.” 

Particular mention has been made of these lawless and shame¬ 
less proceedings, for the reason that this same Kellogg, in his 
usurped office, had the appointment of the supervisors of 
registration in all the parishes of Louisiana during the Presi¬ 
dential campaign of 1876. Their powers, and the conduct of 
some of them in that campaign, will be explained fully in the 
following chapter. 

It is just to the Northern people to say that the masses of 
the Republican party had no accurate information concerning 
the practical operation of reconstruction ” in the Southern 
States ; for the reason that they relied upon newspapers, the 
managers of which suppressed the news relating to the out¬ 
rages of the bayonet-sustained carpet-baggers, and furnished 
their readers instead thereof with exaggerated and often to¬ 
tally unfounded reports of Ku-klux outrages upon the freed- 
men. The result of this unfair dealing out of information 
was that the bulk of the members of the Republican party 
were led to the honest belief that it was necessary to keep up 
military government in the South, and many ultra partisans 
were indifferent to the treatment of ex-rebels so long as they 
themselves were spared. Even Northern Democrats were 
unable to obtain reliable information of the extent and enor¬ 
mity of the outrages perpetrated by carpet-baggers, until after 
the greater part of the shameful mischief had been done. By 
degrees the Northern people came to realize that the impover¬ 
ishment of the Southern people was not only an injustice to 
the people of the prostrate States,” but a serious detriment 
to the country at large. The government was burdened with 
an enormous debt, of which the Southern States could not 
pay their shares so long as their inhabitants were reduced to 


DEMOCRATIC AD^IINISTRATION. 


221 


penury ; those States had furnished a ready and j^rofitable 
market for Northern products and manufactures before the 
war, which the Northern people were interested pecuniarily 
in having restored ; the broad and fertile South, with its rich 
mineral beds, afforded a desirable field for the investment of 
the surplus capital of the North, and the employment of its 
hampered industry ; and, moreover, the great staple product 
of the South had constituted the most valuable export of the 
country before the war. The Democratic minority in the 
North became persistent in proclaiming the doctrine that the 
oppression and impoverishment of the Southern people was 
not only a disgraceful and unnecessary partisan proceeding, 
but that it was a great wrong and detriment to the Northern 
people; that Southern planters had no encouragement to plant 
crops, and Northern enterprise had no encouragement to in¬ 
vest capital for the development of the South, so long as car¬ 
pet-baggers were sustained by the military in plundering the 
Southern property-holders through the agency of the State 
governments. These teachings of the Democratic leaders 
were met, and for many years counteracted, by the bloody- 
shirt ” teachings of the Eepublican politicians ; but they 
gradually impressed the people, and the sentiment began to he 
felt that military misrule and carpet-bag government had been 
endured long enough. This sentiment was developed into an 
irresistible current during the Presidential campaign of 1876, 
which resulted in a popular majority of nearly a quarter of a 
million of votes in favor of Samuel J. Tilden, the Democratic 
candidate. It was to this sentiment, which the Democrats 
had industriously cultivated and developed, that President 
Grant referred in his message of March 1st, 1876, hereinafter 
quoted. It came about in this way : S. B. Packard was the 
Eepublican candidate for governor of Louisiana, and T. J. 
Nicholls was the Democratic candidate, in 1876 ; and they 
were voted for at the same polling places at the same time that 
the Tilden and Hayes Presidential electors were voted for. 
Packard had received more votes than the average vote of the 


222 


SUPERIORITY OF 


Hayes electors, and he naturally enough claimed that his title 
stood on the same basis with Hayes’s title to the Presidency. 
Nicholls knew that he had been elected governor by a majority 
exceeding ten thousand, and Justly insisted that he was entitled 
to the office, and that his duty to the people required that he 
should assert his rights. There were two inaugurations, as 
there had been in 1873, and each claimant demanded the 
recognition of the federal government; Packard further ask¬ 
ing that he should have military aid to support his pretensions. 
The respective inaugurations took place January 8th, 1877 ; 
and each claimant gave prompt notice to the President, and 
attempted to exercise the functions of office. A collision was 
expected, and many appeals for federal aid were sent to Wash¬ 
ington by Packard and his adherents. On January 14th, 
1877, President Grant sent a message to Gen. Augur, then in 
command of the federal troops at ISTew Orleans, in which he 
said : Should there be a necessity for the recognition of 
either, it must he Pachard.’’^ This was followed by many 
exciting events in Louisiana, and by the action of the elec¬ 
toral commission, as well as by Packard’s urgent requests for 
recognition and military aid. These messages are published 
in “ McPherson’s Hand Book of Politics for 1878,” from page 
67 of which the following is taken, to wit : 

“Executive Mansion, March 1, 1877. 
Goy. S. B. Packaed, JYew Orleans: 

‘‘ In answer to your dispatch of this date, the President 
directs me to say that he feels it his duty to state frankly that 
he does not believe 'public opinion will longer support the main¬ 
tenance of State government in Louisiana by the use of the 
military, and that he must concue in this manifest 
FEELING. The troops will hereafter, as in the past, protect 
life and property from mob violence, when the State authori¬ 
ties fail; but under the remaining days of his official life they 
will not be used to establish or pull down either claimant for 
control of the State. It is not his purpose to recognize either 
claimant. 


‘^0. C. Sniffen, Secretary,^^ 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


223 


Shortly afterwards the troops were withdrawn, and carpet¬ 
bag government came to a disgraceful end. Its only support 
was the military arm of the government, and that went down 
before a current of public opinion which even General Grant 
could no longer withstand or defy. That overwhelming 
public opinion was created by the Democratic party, in the 
face of the most persistent opposition of Eepublican politi¬ 
cians backed by an army with Grant at its head. No Repub¬ 
lican partisan politician ever raised his voice against the 
military despotism under which the South was plundered, 
impoverished and dejirived of republican government during 
a woful period of ten years. They persisted in their endeavor 
to continue the sentiment in favor of military rule. The 
whole monstrous scheme of ‘^reconstruction,” as already 
stated, originated in the desire of Republican politicians to 
hold on to power by suppressing or controlling the vote of the 
South; in proof of which the following extract is taken from 
the speech of Senator Howe, in support of the bill introduced 
by him January 10th, 1866, to provide local governments in 
the Southern States. He said : 

“Do senators comprehend what consequences result neces¬ 
sarily from restoring the functions of those States ? It will 
add fifty-eight members to the House of Representatives, 
more than one-fourth of its present number. It will add 
twenty-two members to the Senate, nearly one-half of its 
present number.” 

That was the trouble ; probably not one of the members so 
added would be a Republican ; and to avoid the loss of parti¬ 
san control of the government, “ reconstruction ” was resorted 
to by the Republican politicians, and republican government 
overthrown in the South for ten years. The cure finally came 
from an irresistible public sentiment created by the Demo¬ 
cratic party. The overthrow of military despotism and car¬ 
pet-bag government was the grandest achievement of that 
great party since it overthrew the monarchical institutions of 
Federalism in 1800. 


224 


SUPERIORITY OF 


Consider the result, only a hint of which can be given here. 
In 1860 the cotton product of the South was 4,669,770 bales. 
No record was kept during the war; but, in 1866, the pro¬ 
duction was 2,193,987 bales; and, during the whole ‘‘recon¬ 
struction ’’ period, the production never reached the quantity 
produced in 1860. With the plunderers removed, and the 
planter assured that he would get the benefit of his crop, 
the production reached nearly five million bales in 1878. 
During the whole “ reconstruction ’’ period the balance of 
trade was against the United States every year, except 1874; 
the entire trade balance from 1866 to 1875 inclusive being 
$814,635,166 against this country. In 1876 the balance was 
r in our favor $79,623,480 ; and the aggregate balance in our 
I favor for the years 1876, 1877, 1878 and 1879 was $754,234,- 
/ 204. With the constant drain of gold to meet our trade 
I balances during the “reconstruction '’ period, it would have 
‘ been impossible to resume specie payment on January 1st, 
1879 ; with the turn of the tide, resulting largely from the 
emancipation of the South, resumption was effected without 
a ripple. The importance of the cotton crop as a factor in 
our trade balances is apparent from the fact that the ex¬ 
ports of raw cotton for the year 1878 amounted to $179,031,- 
484, and of cotton manufactured goods $11,435,628. This 
was practically equivalent to laying so much gold on the 
counters of the government, with which to resume specie 
payment. 

The prosperity of the South since it has been restored to 
local self-government, and freed from plunderers and military 
despotism, has been phenomenal. Capital and enterprise have 
flowed in from the North, new industries have been estab¬ 
lished and the old ones revived and increased, and its pros¬ 
perous people are liberal buyers of Northern products. A 
comparison of the South during the ten years preceding 1876 
with the period since is sufficient demonstration that the most 
unwise, unstatesmanlike, unrepublican and suicidal measures 
ever imposed by any party upon the people of the United 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


225 


States were the utterly useless ^^reconstruction” measures, 
born of partisanship, enforced by the military, having no 
foundation in law but the absolute power ” claimed by 
kings, and finally overthrown by an irresistible public senti¬ 
ment created by the Democratic party. 

15 


226 


SUPERIORITY OF 


CHAPTER XVIL 

FREE BALLOT AlTD A FAIR COUNT.” 

Any one who depends wholly upon Republican literature for 
his political information would suppose that the Republican 
party had always been the jealous guardian of the ballot box, 
and that all of the election frauds ever perpetrated in the coun¬ 
try had been the work of Democrats. Governor Foraker, in a 
characteristic article on the ‘^Return of the Republican Party” 
published in the Forum of August, 1887, makes the following 
audacious assertion, to wit: 

‘‘Interference by Republicans with Democrats in an honest 
exercise of the right of suffrage has never been heard of, and 
everybody knows that the Republican party would not accept 
the fruits of such crimes, or, in any manner, shield the per¬ 
petrators of them if they should be committed in its interest. 
The moral sense of the party would not tolerate it.” 

The author prepared a review of Governor Foraker’s article 
which was published in the Pittsburgh Post of October 15th, 
1887; and, as the governor’s method of reasoning is the same 
that has been generally employed by the leaders of his party 
to prove their charges of Democratic frauds upon the ballot- 
box in the Southern States, the following extract from the 
author’s article in the Post is here reproduced : 

“ The startling assertion is made that abuses of the right of 
suffrage are practiced in the South upon such an enormous 
scale as to demand immediate correction in order to ‘ save the 
government from another wrench of violence that will other¬ 
wise surely and speedily come.’ Surely the American people 
will require reliable and unmistakable proof of such abuses 
before they will permit any class of disappointed politicians 
to plunge the country into the horrors of another civil war 
for the alleged purpose of correcting abuses of the elective 


DEMOCRATIC AimiNISTRATION. 


227 


franchise. What evidence does Governor Foraker furnish ? 
First, the returns of the ‘ formal farce called a congressional 
election,’ in Georgia, in 1886 ; which show, according to the 
figures furnished, that in the 10 congressional districts of 
Georgia an average of only 2,743 votes were polled in each 
district, and only 27,430 votes in the entire State; while, in 
Ohio, the average vote polled in each district at a congressional 
election is 30,000. From this statement of facts the monstrous 
conclusion is drawn that ^it cannot be expected that such 
manifest abuses will be long tolerated.’ 

Governor Foraker’s logic briefly stated is precisely this: 
The voting population of the several congressional districts of 
Ohio and Georgia is about the same; in Ohio the average vote 
polled ill each district at a congressional election is about 
30,000 ; in Georgia the average vote polled in each district at 
the congressional election of 1886 was only 2,743 ; therefore, 
the difference between 30,000 voters and 2,743 voters, to wit, 
27,257 voters, must have been prevented from casting their 
ballots by intimidation or other improper methods. 

‘‘Who intimidated them, and how? Governor Foraker 
furnishes no information. Are his readers expected to draw 
the ridiculous inference that the 2,743 voters who attended the 
polls intimidated upwards of 27,000 voters who did not vote ? 
If so, they must have been tremendous fellows ! 

“The aggregate vote polled in Georgia for the ten Demo¬ 
cratic candidates in 1886 was 25,043. Every reader of intel¬ 
ligence knows that that was nothing like the full number of 
Democratic voters in Georgia. In 1880 Hancock’s vote was 
102,522; in 1882, Stephens, the Democratic candidate for 
governor, received 107,253 votes; in 1884 Cleveland’s vote 
was 94,253. It cannot be fairly doubted that the Democratic 
voters of Georgia in 1886 numbered at least 100,000 ; and, if 
so, it is plain that 75,000 Democrats failed to vote at the con¬ 
gressional election for 1886. 

“Were they intimidated? Surely not; for Democrats 
would not intimidate their own voters, and Governor Foraker 
assures his readers that such a thing as Republican interfer¬ 
ence with Democrats in polling their legal vote was never 
heard of. If 75,000 Democrats, whose right to vote was totally 
unobstructed, voluntarily remained away from the polls, what 
warrant can be found for the assumption that the anti-Demo- 
cratic voters, few or many, were kept from voting by means 
of intimidation or the practice of improper methods ? 


228 


SUPERIORITY OF 


Before the Northern people allow themselves to be plunged 
into a civil war on account of the lean vote polled in Georgia, 
as compared with the full vote polled in Ohio, they will care¬ 
fully ascertain whether or not the meager vote polled in 
Georgia cannot be rationally explained without attributing 
‘bloody/ or ‘fraudulent/ or even ‘improper’ methods to the 
Democrats of that State. 

“It is known that Ohio is afflicted with more politics to 
the square inch than any other State of the Union. No 
other State is cursed with so many exciting party contests. 
Both parties keep up complete organizations in every elec¬ 
tion precinct and they make vigorous contests at all elections. 
Even in a congressional district where one party is in a hope¬ 
less minority, it makes a contest in order to keep the party 
organization intact for general elections. In Ohio the affairs 
of both parties are conducted on Mr. Bagnet’s principle that 
‘discipline must be maintained.’ The average Ohio voter is 
instructed in the doctrine that it is his religious duty to return 
from Australia, if need be, in time to reach the polls on elec¬ 
tion day. For every test of party strength at the polls, months 
of zealous labor and large sums of money are expended in 
organizing and arousing the voters and in polling the vote ; 
and yet, with all the labor of trained organizers, and all their 
diligent and systematic work on election day, in the absence 
of all manner of intimidation, and with the exercise of every 
inducement to voters to turn out, the number of votes polled 
invariably falls far short of the number of registered voters. 
It is practically impossible to poll a full vote at any election. 
If such be the fact in Ohio, and no one will question it, what 
may naturally be expected in a State or section where the 
campaign methods are entirely different and the voters scat¬ 
tered over a much larger extent of territory ? 

“ The population of Ohio is more than double that of 
Georgia ; its territory is little more than two-thirds as large. 
The vote is more scattered and more difficult to poll. Many 
of the white people, and still more of the negroes, of Georgia, 
are indifferent about elections. They will travel ten miles to 
a circus, fox-hunt, frolic or barbecue, when they will not go 
half a mile to the polls. The Georgia Republicans are with¬ 
out organizers or organization. What imperiled Virginia as a 
Democratic State ? Simply the systematic organization of the 
opposition under the leadership of Senator Mahone. No such 
organization has ever existed in Georgia or throughout the 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


229 


South. The complete system for polling the votes, practiced 
so laboriously in Ohio and here in Pennsylvania, is practically 
unknown in Georgia, particularly so amongst the Republicans. 
In the election for members of congress in that State, in 1886, 
but three of the districts had a Republican candidate ; and it 
is plain that the Democrats had no inducement to poll a full 
vote in districts where their candidate had no opposition. In 
the Seventh District, as shown by Governor Foraker’s figures, 
an independent candidate polled 1,537 votes, which was a 
sufficient development of opposition to bring out 5,043 Dem¬ 
ocrats to the polls in that district. In none of the districts 
was there any sort of necessity for intimidation, or the prac¬ 
tice of improper methods, or an Ohio turn-out to the polls ; 
because there was practically no contest. 

“ One other piece of evidence of abuses of the franchise is 
presented in Governor ForakePs article, and only one. It is 
this : Prior to the adoption of the fourteenth amendment only 
three-fifths of the slave population were counted in determin¬ 
ing the basis of representation in the lower house of congress. 
AVhen the negroes were enfranchised the whole number was 
counted, and thereby the South became entitled to additional 
members of congress and additional electoral votes. Gover¬ 
nor Foraker says : 

“ ^ On account of this enfranchisement and consequent repre¬ 
sentation of the blacks, these States had in the last Presiden¬ 
tial election 38 electoral votes, to not one of which would they 
have been otherwise entitled, and every one of which would 
have been cast for Blaine and Logan if the will of the people 
they represented could have controlled them. If these votes 
had been simply blotted out, and not cast at all, Mr. Cleve¬ 
land could not have been elected. The consequence is that 
Mr. Cleveland is President because the white Democrats of the 
South not only cast for him the vote that rightfully belonged 
to them, but also these 38 votes, which they fraudulently ap¬ 
propriated to their own use.’ 

Let us put this so-called ^ abuse ’ to the test. 0hio has 
23 electoral votes, every one of which was cast and counted 
for Mr. Blaine. They represented the entire population of 
Ohio, Democrats as well as Republicans. The votes polled for 
Cleveland, in Ohio, numbered 368,286 ; Blaine’s vote in Ohio 
was 400,082. The entire vote is to Cleveland’s vote as 23 is to 
11; hence 11 of the electoral votes cast by Ohio for Mr. Blaine 
represent her Democratic population, and would have been cast 


230 


SUPERIORITY OF 


for Cleveland ^ if the will of the people they represented could 
have controlled them.” 

Let Governor Foraker apply his own logic and his own 
language to Ohio, as well as to the Southern States, and see 
what a terrible charge he will write down against the Ohio 
Eepublicans, including himself. It would be precisely this : 
Ohio had in the last Presidential election 11 electoral votes, 
to not one of which would she have been entitled without 
her Democratic population, and every one of which would 
have been cast for Cleveland and Hendricks if the will of the 
people they represented could have controlled them. The 
consequence is (such is Governor ForakeFs logic to support 
his charges against the Southern people) that Mr. Blaine 
received 23 votes from Ohio in the electoral college, instead of 
12, because the Eepublicans of Ohio not only cast for him the 
votes that rightfully belonged to them, but also these 11 votes 
‘ which they fraudulently appropriated to their own use.’ ” 

The fact is that Mr. Blaine properly received the entire 
electoral vote of Ohio because the majority of the voters of 
that State voted for the Eepublican electors ; and Mr. Cleve¬ 
land received the entire electoral vote of the several Southern 
States because the majority of the voters in each of those 
States voted for the Democratic electors. The fallacious rea¬ 
soning of Governor Foraker furnishes no evidence whatever of 
fraud in the South, any more than in Ohio. 

Ho fair man of even meager information will be reckless 
enough to assert that his party has been totally free from the 
practice of frauds in connection with jDopular elections. It is 
quite likely that no contested election was ever held in any 
State at which some unlawful votes were not polled and some 
lawful votes rejected. There is no difficulty, however, in 
establishing the fact that the Eepublican party has frequently 
accepted the benefits of gigantic election frauds, and that its 
managers and workers have practiced frauds upon the ballot- 
box with a boldness and on a scale of magnitude never 
attempted by any other party. 

During the campaign of 1872 the author attended a Liberal- 
Eepublican meeting in the Town Hall at Washington, Pa. 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


231 


The meeting was addressed by Dr. F. Julius Lemoyne, the 
famous and brave old Abolitionist, and by lion. Thomas M. 
Marshall, of Pittsburgh, Pa., who ranks second to none of 
the Republican orators of Pennsylvania. Both of the distin¬ 
guished orators were disciples of Horace Greeley before the 
Republican party was organized, and they zealously supported 
him for the Presidency in 1872. In his speech upon the 
occasion referred to, Mr. Marshall warned his hearers to be on 
their guard against Republican frauds, and, to enforce his 
eloquent warning, he related an incident within his personal 
knowledge connected with a then recent election in Pennsyl¬ 
vania. It occurred on the night of the election, when the 
returns of the city of Philadelphia were being withheld until 
Bufldcient news had been received from other parts of the State. 
At that hour of suspense, a telegram from Philadelphia was 
received in Pittsburgh conveying the following intelligence to 
the representatives of the party whose moral sense would 
not tolerate ” the acceptance of the fruits of a fraud upon the 
ballot-box : 

‘^Philadelphia has twenty thousand Republican majority; 
can malce it forty thousand, if needed .’^ 

Instances are not wanting of Republican primary elections 
in precincts which return more votes for one of the rival can¬ 
didates for nomination than the entire vote of both parties in 
the precinct. The machine workers had become so accustomed 
to the practice of frauds upon the Democrats that they car¬ 
ried their lawless practices into contests between their own 
candidates for nominations. The Republican managers have 
never been equaled in the exactions of contributions and serv¬ 
ices from their officials and the subordinate employes of offices 
under their control. In 1870, the Honorable J. D. Cox, 
Secretary of the Interior, wrote in answer to a letter of the 
Chairman of the Republican Executive Committee of Ohio as 
follows, to wit; 


332 


SUPERIORITY OF 


Department of the Interior 

Washington, D. C., August 10th, 1870. 

Dear Sir : Your committee requests a full list of the 
names of the employes of the government in this department 
from Ohio, with the amount of salary and name of county, 
etc., from which each was appointed, for the purpose of mak¬ 
ing a small assessment upon them for State and congressional 
campaign purposes. 

After a careful consideration of the matter, with the 
strongest desire to second every right movement in behalf of 
the Republican organization in which we have so great a corn- 
interest, I am constrained to decline complying with your 
request because I am convinced that it would not be right to 
do so, and, therefore, not to the advantage of the Republican 
party, which can only exist by continuing to be the champion 
of the right. The considerations which led me to this conclu¬ 
sion may be summed up in two, namely: 

‘^1. That such assessments are directly antagonistic to the 
Civil Service Reform, which I believe to be so imperative a 
necessity that the Republican party, as the proper party of 
true reforms, cannot longer delay to make it part of their 
platform ; and— 

‘^3. Because the specific assessments you now propose to 
make on behalf of the State Central Committee is an innova¬ 
tion in a bad direction. 

“ This year, for the first time, the clerks have received a 
circular from the Congressional Committee fixing* the amount 
each is assessed (1 per cent, on their incomes), and indicating 
the expectation of a response in an authoritative manner. 
Prom two or three of "the States similar assessments have been 
received ; in one instance per cent., thus making an income 
tax of 3i per cent., besides expecting these gentlemen to 
travel to their several States, at their own expense, for the 
purpose of voting. I have not heard of district and county 
assessments yet, but know of no reason why they should not 
follow if the others are recognized. 

‘‘But it has never before been assumed that the salaries of 
the employes were a fund on which the committees of the party, 
National, State, district, etc., could draw at discretion. In¬ 
deed, the whole hushiess has been one which respect for the 
moral sense of the comm unity has hitherto kept from appear¬ 
ing in any definite or piiblic form; and I look upon it as 
one of the most unhappy evidences of political demoralization 


DEMOCRATIC AD3IINISTRATI0N. 


233 


that, from several sources, simultaneously, there shouM have 
come open and undisguised levies of an income tax this year 
for the tirst time.” 

It is a significant fact that Mr. Cox did not continue in the 
office of Secretary of the Interior many months after he made 
this manly stand against the levy of a party corruption tax 
upon the incomes of the employes of the office. He under¬ 
stood the servility required to secure a position in the depart¬ 
ments, and believed there should be some limit to the exac¬ 
tions of party bosses. The authoritative ” demands upon 
employes of the government were continued. A circular 
dated May 27th, 1878, headed ‘^Headquarters of the Eepub- 
lican Congressional Committee, 1878,1319 F Street North¬ 
west, Washington, D. C.,” was issued conveying the following 
information to government employes : 

“This committee, charged with laboring for the success of 
the Republican cause in the coming campaign for the election 
of members of congress, call with confidence upon you, as a 
Rej:)ublican, for such a contribution in money as you may feel 
willing to make, hoping that it may not he less than 816. The 
committee deem it proper, in thus appealing to Republicans 
generally j to inform those who happen to be in federal em¬ 
ploy, that there will be no objection in any official quarter to 
such voluntary contribution.” 

This was after the Civil Service Order, dated Executive 
Mansion, Washington, June 22d, 1877, had been issued over 
the signature of “ R. B. Hayes,” and which declared that “ No 
assessments for political purposes on officers or subordinates 
should be allowed.” Hence the department servants were 
informed that “voluntary contributions” would meet with 
“ no objection in any official quarter.” 

It is interesting to learn the sense in which the word “vol¬ 
untary” was understood by the managers as well as the 
employes. The circular of May 27th, 1878, was followed by 
another dated July 11th, 1878, informing such employes as had 
not responded to the first notification, that, in view of their 
office hours rendering it difficult for them to call with their 


234 


SUPERIORITY OF 


contributions during banking hours, the treasurer had arranged 
to receive their contributions between designated hours at a 
specified bank. This w^as followed by a third circular ad¬ 
dressed to delinquents in the month of August, which throws 
abundant light on the meaning of ‘^voluntary.” It reads as 
follows, to wit : 

Dear Sir : There appears to he due upon your suhscription 
to our campaign fund the sum of . , . dollars. We have 
regarded your subscription as a debt of honor, voluntarily 
incurred by you, and relying upon its payment, have taken it 
into account in the conduct of our work. We earnestly 

request immediate payment, and Mr.-will be in 

attendance at these headquarters (second floor daily), from 10 
o’clock A.M. till 6 o’clock p.m., to receive and receipt for such 
moneys.” 

This was signed by the secretary, who, in his subsequent 
testimony before an examining committee, stated that the 
^^subscriptions” to his committee in the congressional cam¬ 
paign of 1878 amounted to about $106,000. 

All the remainder of the $93,000 came from those in 
the civil service of the government ? A. Yes, I think so. 

Q. And from the Republican party outside of those who 
were employed you received but $13,000 ? A. That is all ; 
I am sorry to say that was all we got from them.” 

The campaign of 1878 was not exceptional with respect to 
exactions from employes of the government. Under date of 
May 15th, 1882, a circular was issued from the Headquarters 
of the Republican Congressional Committee, 1882, 520 Thir¬ 
teenth Street, Northwest, Washington, D.C.,” from which the 
following extract is quoted : 

“Under the circumstances in which the country finds itself 
placed, the committee believes that you will esteem it both a 
privilege and a pleasure to make to its funds a contribution, 

which it is hoped may not be less than $-. The committee 

is authorized to state that such voluntary contributions from 
persons employed in the service of the United States will not 
be objected in any official quarter.” 

This was followed by a second circular, dated August 15th, 




DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


335 


1882, which shows the meaning of voluntary ’’ in the first 
circular. It reads : 

Sir : Your failure to respond to the circular of May 15th, 
1882, sent to you by this committee, is noted with su 7 'prise. It 
is hoped that the only reason for such failure^ is that the matter 
escaped your attention owing to the press of other cares. 

Great political battles cannot be won in this way. This 
committee cannot hope to succeed in the impending struggle 
if those most directly heiiefited hy success are unwilling or 
neglect to aid in a substantial manner. . . . 

“ It is hoped that by return mail you will send a voluntary 
contribution equal to two per cent, of your annual compensa¬ 
tion., as a substantial proof of your earnest desire for the success 
of the Republican party this fall,’’ etc. 

Government employes were greeted with a eircular dated 
August 8th, 1884, issued from “ Headquarters Republican 
National Committee, No. 242 Fifth Avenue, New York City,” 
informing them that every Republican was deeply interested 
in the result of the unusually important Presidential cam¬ 
paign then pending ; that funds to meet its lawful and proper 
expenses were required; that ‘‘such voluntar}'contributions 
as their means will permit ” were invited to be sent by draft 
on New York or postal money order ” to the chairman, with 
the assurance that a receipt for the same will be sent by 
return mail.” The circular closed by calling attention to the 
provisions of the act of congress, entitled ‘‘ an Act to regulate 
and improve the civil service of the United States,” approved 
January 16th, 1883, with the assurance that the influence of 
the Committee will be exerted in conformity therewith ” ! ! ! 

The assessment of government servants for party purposes, 
under the convenient and innocent name of voluntary con¬ 
tributions,” was not confined to the employes in the deiDart- 
ments at AVashington. A clerk in a government office con¬ 
sulted the author professionally, some years ago, his com¬ 
plaint being that he was employed at a salary of 1100 per 
month, for which sum he was required to receipt at the end 
of each month, although the sum paid to him monthly was 


236 


SUPERIORITY OF 


only $92 ; the explanation given to him by the head of the 
office was that the other $8 per month was required for party 
purposes. 

Such exactions are utterly unknown under the present 
Democratic Administration. Federal officials and subordi¬ 
nates, during the period of Republican administration, were 
made to understand exactly what was required of them as the 
price of their positions ; and when an amount or percent¬ 
age of salary was mentioned in a circular as the ‘^voluntary 
contribution ” they were requested to make, they knew that 
‘^failure’’ or ^‘neglect” to respond with the amount of such 
assessment was regarded as sufficient cause for their discharge 
to make room for more obedient servants. They were also 
expected, as Secretary Cox said, to travel to their several 
States, at their own expense, for the purpose of voting.’’ As¬ 
sessments and votes for party candidates, exacted from gov¬ 
ernment employes, were not tlie only uses made by the man¬ 
agers of the Republican party of the powers of the govern¬ 
ment in securing votes for their party candidates. 

The Pension Bureau was used with great effect in controll¬ 
ing votes, particularly during the Presidential campaigns of 
1880 and 1884. When Gen. Black assumed the duties of the 
office of Commissioner of Pensions, he found only 28 Demo¬ 
crats among upwards of 1,500 clerks employed in the Pension 
Bureau. In his report to the Secretary of the Interior, made 
November 18th, 1885, after he had been in office about eight 
months. Commissioner Black used the following language, to 
wit: 

At one time the Pension Bureau was all but avowedly a 
political machine, filled from border to border with the un¬ 
compromising adherents of a single organization, who had for 
the claimants other tests than those of the law, and who re¬ 
quired, in addition to service in the field, submission to and 
support of a party before pensions loere granted. Not always, 
but often, was it true ; not openly, but surely, were the tests 
applied ; and the vast machinery of a professed governmental 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


237 


office became a part}^ power. The enormous array of medical 
boards established in every quarter was almost solidly par¬ 
tisan ; made'so, not openly, but surely. People of one faith 
filled every one of the great agencies. Examiners, trained in 
unscrupulous schools, traversed the land as recruiting ser¬ 
geants for a party. Chiefs of divisions, assistants, clerks, 
messengers, messenger boys, watchmen, and laborers were all 
but entirely from one school. Veteran service could not 
secure continuance in office, and, at the behest and demand of 
partisans beyond the office^ old employes were cut adrift and 
zealous rufflers placed in their stead; leaves of absence were 
granted that the active men of the party might dominate over 
the elections.’’ 

Upon the publication of Commissioner Black’s report, a 
resolution passed the Senate that the Committee on Expen¬ 
ditures of the Public Money is hereby directed to inquire into 
the truth of said allegation, and to report the facts and testi¬ 
mony presented before them to the Senate.” That committee 
was composed of Senators Cullom, Harrison, Plumb, Platt, 
Beck, Kcnna, and Gibson ; the first four being Eepublicans, 
and the last three being Democrats. At its first meeting, 
March 10th, 1886, Gen. Black made the following request and 
offer, to wit: 

^^Mr. Chairman, I desire to have the privilege of summon¬ 
ing witnesses and of proving in the proper manner the correct¬ 
ness of each allegation that 1 have made at a day speedily to be 
fixed by the Committee, and I offer to furnish to the Com¬ 
mittee a list of witnesses whom I shall want, and a request for 
the summonses that I shall desire.” 

This application was denied by a party vote. At that meet¬ 
ing Senator Harrison put this question : If you have any 

knowledge of any case in the Pension Office, pending at the 
time you came into office, or disposed of prior to that time, in 
which an application was granted by the Board of Review, or 
by the Commissioner of Pensions, or rejected by the Board of 
Review, or Commissioner of Pensions, on account of the poli¬ 
tics of the person applying for pension, will you please give the 


238 


SUPERIORITY OF 


names and numbers of these cases ?” To which General Black 
answered : I will furnish such cases.” The investigation of 
that committee consisted of the admission in evidence of the 
records of eighteen adjudicated claims, upon which the com¬ 
missioner was examined; but he was denied the privilege of 
producing witnesses to sustain the charges made in his report. 
Of course, it could not be expected that the records of the cases 
examined would contain evidence of the partisanship charged. 
In proof of the partisan interference of politicians outside of 
the Pension Office we have the following : 

(Personal.) 

Western Division, Republican National Committee Head¬ 
quarters. 

“ Chicago, Sept. 11, 1888. 

Hok. Marshall Jewell, 

Chairman Nat. Repub. Com., 241 Fifth Av., New York : 
Dear Governor : I enclose herewith a letter from Colonel 
Richard 0. Burke, Fort Wayne, a man who is looking after the 
laboring men in that locality in the interest of the party. I 
know what Colonel Burke says to be true ; that the miserable 
delays and absurd rulings of the Pension Office have injured us 
more among the soldiers than all the Hancocks in creation. 
Now, if you will send Colonel Hooker over to Washington with 
this letter, and induce, if possible, the commissioner of pen¬ 
sions to report to each one of these men that their cases are 
made special, it will help us hundreds of votes in Fort Wayne ; 
and also have the commissioner write a letter to Philip R. 
Grund, 176 Henry Street, Fort Wayne, in regard to pensioners, 
which could be used for publication to help us. The work is 
progressing in Indiana energetically and satisfactorily. I am 
not sure that we will carry the State; but, if we do not, I am 
certain it is not worth while to attempt it hereafter. New was 
here yesterday, and I had a full and interesting conference 
with him. Whatever jealousy exists there, is not between New 
and myself, but between Dudley and New ; but I hope it will 
cut no figure in the work in hand. 

Yours truly, 

^‘S. W. Dorsey.” 

The letter of Colonel Burke, enclosed in the foregoing inter 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


239 


esting letter of Mr. Dorsey, was dated at Fort Wayne, Indiana, 
September 9th, 1880, and directed To the Commissioner of 
Pensions, Washington, D. 0.’’ It contained a list of cases, 
and closed as follows, to wit: 

The commissioner of pensions is requested to make these 
cases ‘ special,’ and without delay to inform each claimant 
({iddressing caro of Lieut.-Ool. Philip R. Grund, 176 Henry 
St., Ft. Wayne, Ind.) that the case has been placed on the 
‘ special ’ list, and will receive the most prompt attention of 
his ofiQce.” 

It is a matter of record that the cases mentioned in Col¬ 
onel Burke’s letter of September 9th were all made ‘‘ spe¬ 
cial ” on September 18th, 1880, and the respective claimants 
notified of the fact. The number of pension claims admit¬ 
ted in Indiana during September, 1880, was 186, and during 
October, 748. The foregoing correspondence exhibits the 
confidence with which the managers of the famous ^‘Soap 
Campaign ” in Indiana, in 1880, communicated their partisan 
desires to the Republican head of the bureau having charge 
of the claims of soldiers and the widows and orphans of sol¬ 
diers. They did not hesitate to ask that a bureau of the 
government, clothed with authority to adjudicate claims upon 
the government, should so regulate its procedure with respect 
to particular claims that ‘‘it will help us hundreds of 
votes.” 

Congress passed an act July 7th, 1884, providing and mak- 
ing appropriation “ for an additional force of one hundred and 
fifty special examiners for one year, at a salary of $1,600 
each.” In his testimony before a congressional committee, 
Mr. Dudley, commissioner of pensions, explained the special 
examination division of the Pension Bureau as follows, to 
wit: 

“ That is a division consisting of two classes of clerks : one 
class that travels in the fields and examines pension cases, 
that is, takes testimony in pension cases—these special exam- 


240 


SUPERIORITY OF 


iners cross-examine witnesses and allow claimants to intro¬ 
duce testimony ; the other part of it consists of those who do 
the clerical work of the division, and who are employed here 
in Washington.” 

Of the one hundred and fifty additional special examiners 
promptly appointed pursuant to the act of July 7th, 1884, 
but a single one was a Democrat. In the month of July, 
1884, the number of these special examiners in the field, was 
295 ; in August 32G ; in September 581; in October 383. 
On March 1st, 1886, John E. Coffin made an affidavit before 
a notary in which, after stating that he had been a special 
examiner in the Pension Office from June 30th, 1881, until 
October 26th, 1884, he says : 

^‘During the canvass of 1884 W. AY. Dudley, the Commis¬ 
sioner of Pensions—while no order was issued in terms, it is 
a matter of record—directed that special examiners be sent 
into those districts where the j)olitical warfare was waging ; 
yet it was well understood that special examiners were assigned 
to those districts and cases given to them for special examina¬ 
tion, not that it was the intent or purpose that they should 
discharge the duties of special examiners, but that this assign¬ 
ment being a matter of record they might draw their per diem 
and traveling expenses for the purpose of performing political 
work, and deponent instances as then in his own knowledge 
the following facts : 

In the campaign of 1884, deponent was instructed to hand 
one Joseph E. Jacobs, then a special examiner, three or four 
cases for special examination in Ohio, and that deponent 
understood at that time, and he believes the said Jacobs under¬ 
stood the same, that his mission was a political mission and 
that he was not expected or required to report on these cases, 
and, as a matter of fact, deponent knows that when the said 
Jacobs returned, no ivork had been done on them lohatever, 
and that the said Jacobs, nevertheless, drew his per diem and 
traveling expenses at the time during his absence.” 

Mr. E. 0. Polkinhorn, printer and publisher, Washington, 
D. C., in his valuable and instructive publication entitled 
‘^The Campaign Book of the Democratic Party, 1886,” pub- 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


241 


lislies a great number of affidavits showing how special exam¬ 
iners of the Pension Office were engaged in ‘‘performing 
political work,” while drawing their per diem and traveling 
expenses from the government. The author acknowledges his 
indebtedness to Mr. Polkinhorn for the greater part of the 
information contained in this chapter relating to the manipu¬ 
lations of the Pension Office for party purposes, and com¬ 
mends his book to the reader for more detailed and much 
fuller information than it is practicable to produce here. The 
affidavits show that the procedure in many pension claims was 
made to depend upon the applicant’s support of Kepublican 
candidates, and that examiners directly and indirectly warned 
applicants that tlie success or failure of their claims depended 
on their votes. Of course, any lawyer knows that ex parte 
affidavits are not the most satisfactory evidence; but it was 
the fault of the Eepublican majority of the Senate committee 
that Commissioner Black was not permitted to produce the 
witnesses for full examination and cross-examination. What¬ 
ever weight may be given to affidavits, the reader can have 
no difficulty in understanding the following correspondence. 
G-eo. W. Grubbs, a Eepublican candidate for congress, wrote 
as follows from Martinsville, Ind., under date of August 13th, 
1884 : 

“ Col. W. W. Dudley : 

“ The best thing that could be done for me in this district, 
where I need it most, is the appointment of a board of medical 
examiners at this point. Soldiers of all the counties adjacent 
are urging it and have their hearts set upon it, and if it could 
be secured presumptuously through any efforts of mine, it 
would greatly benefit me. I certainly need every aid that can 
be afforded me, and with it I think I can win.” 


To this appeal, which “presumptuously” indicates the 
unfitness of its writer to represent an honest and intelligent 
constituency in congress, the then Commissioner of Pensions 
made the following prompt response, to wit : 

16 


242 


SUPERIORITY OF 


“ Department of the Interior, 
Pension Office, 

Washington, D. C., Aug. 16, 1884. 

Hon. Gt. W. GtEUBB, Martinsville, Ind. : 

Deae SiE : Yonr favors of the 13th are at hand. I have 
directed that your inquiry in regard to pension cases shall 
have prompt attention. As to the matter of the establishment 
of a board of surgeons at Martinsville, I will have the matter 
canvassed by my medical referee as soon as possible, and, if 
'practicablej it shall be done. You need not be assured that 
my best wishes are for your success. 

‘‘ Very truly yours, 

W. Dudley.” 

This correspondence illustrates the willingness of the head 
of an important bureau of the government to employ his offi¬ 
cial authority to promote the election of his party candidate, 
and it shows the character of the interest these people had in 
the soldiers. ‘‘ Hon.” Grubb did not ask for a new board 
for the sake of the soldiers, but because it would greatly 
benefit 'mef and Commissioner Dudley was moved, not by 
any desire to accommodate the disabled soldiers, but by his 
desire to secure the success ” of a Eepublican candidate. 

Higher federal offices than that of Commissioner of Pen¬ 
sions have been used by the Republicans for the purpose of 
securing votes for partisan friends, rather than to benefit the 
public or promote the efficiency of the public service. Every 
well-informed reader remembers a time when the Republican 
managers were driven to the practice of extraordinary measures 
to secure control of the United States Senate. One of the 
representatives of the State of Virginia in the Senate of the 
United States had been a rank rebel, and had been sent to the 
Senate as a Democrat. To the amazement of everybody out¬ 
side of the inner councils of the Republican party, this ex- 
rebel marched into the Republican fold where he was received 
with open arms and hoisted upon a pedestal of heroism. His 
vote gave the coveted Republican majority in the Senate. 
From that time the Republican President practically abdicated 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


243 


his office with respect to federal appointments in Virginia, 
and turned over the whole matter of choosing federal officers 
in that State to Senator Mahone. 

The practice of coercing votes was not operated upon 
employes of the government alone. Employes of corporations, 
monopolies, and other classes who were favored by the gov¬ 
ernment understood as fully as the government employes that 
their positions depended on their votes. Boss rule was en¬ 
forced with such rigor upon aspiring members of the party 
that no one could hope for advancement without an uncondi¬ 
tional surrender of his independence, and servile submission 
to the dictation of the managers of the party machine. Manly 
young men, capable of serving their fellow-citizens creditably 
in public positions and advancing to the stature of statesmen, 
were literally forced out of politics by their refusal to become 
subservient dependants of Republican bosses. Little men, 
schooled in unscrupulous methods, and capable of no higher 
duties than operating party machinery, were promoted to 
positions designed for statesmen. Let any intelligent citizen 
of Pennsylvania call the roll of its Governors, and of its 
Senators and Representatives in congress, during the period 
of Republican supremacy, and note the names of all who have 
the slightest claims to statesmanship ! He would mark the 
name of Governor Curtin ; but the narrowing and arbitrary 
methods of the dominant wing of the party excluded him from 
the Republican fold long ago, and for years he has acted 
with the Democrats, who sent him to congress as a fit and 
independent representative of the people. Who would vent¬ 
ure to name any other Republican governor as a statesman ? 
Among the Senators, Cowan would be promptly marked ; but 
the arrogance of party bosses, to which he could not con¬ 
scientiously yield, forced him from office and from the Re¬ 
publican party, and for nearly twenty years before his death 
he acted with the Democrats. Who, besides him, among the 
Republican Senators of Pennsylvania, deserves to be considered 
among statesmen ? Since the days of Thaddeus Stevens, who 


2U 


SUPERIORITY OF 


among the Eepublican delegation from Pennsylvania in con¬ 
gress has attained a national reputation ? William D. Kelley, 
perhaps; and he only as the persistent champion of high 
protection monopoly. Cameronism overwhelmed Curtin and 
Cowan and McClure, and dwarfed men of promise, until the 
State is noted in politics only for cunning manipulators and a 
tremendous Eepublican majority. 

Eetail liquor dealers have been systematically coerced to 
vote for Eepublican candidates in many localities where that 
party is in authority; and in such localities the Democrats 
have been loaded with the odium of being the Whiskey Party, 
while the Eepublican candidates have received the benefit of 
the bulk of the whiskey vote.” At a recent session of the 
court held in the city of Pittsburgh to consider applications 
for liquor licenses, the applicants w^ere called personally be¬ 
fore the court, under the new Brook’s Law, and examined by 
the judges with reference to previous violations of the laws 
prohibiting sales of liquor on Sundays, and to minors, luna¬ 
tics, intoxicated persons, and persons of known intemperate 
habits; and the result of such examination was a very gen¬ 
eral admission on the part of applicants that they had vio¬ 
lated some of these prohibitory laws, and particularly the 
Sunday law. Of course, there were some exceptions. Gen¬ 
eral violations of such laws could not escape the notice of 
public authorities, and nobody can fail to understand the 
persuasive power of the liability to prosecution in controlling 
the vote of a violator of law. 

The operations of Johnny Davenport, in the city of Kew 
York, carried on under the pretense of preventing Democratic 
frauds, the shameless manipulations and falsifications of elec¬ 
tion returns in Philadelphia, and the employment of the mili¬ 
tary to control elections in the border States during the war, 
and in the Southern States during the reconstruction period, 
are too well known and generally understood to require any 
particular mention. The most gigantic fraud ever perpetrated 
in Ameiica was the seating of the Eepublican candidate for the 


DE3I0CRAT1C AD^IINISTRATION, 


245 


Presidency, upon the faith of election returns so manifestly 
fraudulent that the only possible way to sustain them was 
to suppress all inquiry into their accuracy. When the bill for 
the creation of the Electoral Commission was under discussion 
in congress, it was opposed by James A. Garfield, who, in the 
course of a set speech, said : 

The plain declaration of this first section is that congress 
may at its discretion, for any reason good or bad, or for no 
reason, stifle the vote of any State. The constitution com¬ 
mands that the votes shall he counted; this bill declares that 
the votes may be rejected. It is a monstrous assumption, a 
reckless usurpation of power. Congress may not use the vast 
powers herein granted ; but a vote for this bill is a vote that 
congress may thus act.’’ 

In the same speech, he said ‘of the bill : 

“ It assumes the right of congress to go down into the col¬ 
leges and inquire into all the acts and facts connected with 
their work. It assumes the right of congress to go down into 
the States, to review the act of every officer, to open every 
ballot-box, and to pass judgment upon every ballot cast by 
seven millions of Americans.” 

SucI) was Mr. Garfield’s conception of the power conferred 
upon the Electoral Commission, and such was the understand¬ 
ing of the supporters of the bill; it was its design to get 
at the truth of the returns, and count the electoral votes of 
the several States for the candidate whose right it was to 
receive them ; but when Mr. Garfield came to act as a mem¬ 
ber of the commission, he voted with the other Republican 
members to exclude all evidence of fraud in the electoral 
colleges and returning boards, and to accept the fraudulent 
returns as conclusive. It was the only possible way that the 
control of the government could be retained by the Republican 
party, and the true returns were suppressed. The man whose 
expressed convictions were in direct antagonism with his par¬ 
tisan decision, was rewarded by the Republican party with the 
Presidency at the next election. It would require a separate 


246 


SUPERIORITY OF 


volume to present the details of the unblushing, enormous 
and palpable frauds practiced in Louisiana and Florida, and 
suppressed by the Electoral Commission by a strict party vote, 
whereby the Republican party received and accepted the fruits 
of crime, and not only shielded the perpetrators, but shame¬ 
lessly rewarded them. Mr. Polkinhorn’s book, hereinbefore 
cited, contains a list of nearly one hundred persons connected 
with that stupendous fraud who received profitable appoint¬ 
ments from the administration they had corruptly aided in 
creating, including the husband of the notorious Mrs. Jenks, 
who was made clerk in the Mint at an annual salary of $1,000. 

In the course of the hearing,” such as it was, before the 
Electoral Commission, Senator Matt. Carpenter, one of the 
ablest lawyers and most brilliant representatives, next to Conk- 
ling, that the Republican party ever had in the United States 
Senate, after saying that he did “^not appear for Samuel J. 
Tilden,” proceeded to say : 

“ I appear for ten thousand legal voters of Louisiana, who, 
without accusation or proof, indictment or trial, notice or hear¬ 
ing, have been disfranchised by four villains, incorporated 
with perpetual session, whose official title is the returning board 
of Louisiana.” 

He further said, referring to the same four villains : We 
shall offer to prove by record evidence that they threw out of 
their count over ten thousand votes for the Tilden electors ; ” 
and, still further, ‘^Disfranchisement was imposed upon ten 
thousand legal votes by a tribunal which had no jurisdiction 
to exclude a vote.” That great Republican senator uttered 
further words to that partisan commission which will find a 
response in the heart of every honest citizen. Said he : 

“ You take a community of American citizens ; you take a 
State of this Union and put over them a government by fraud 
and by violence—for that is the way Kellogg got his seat, as 
we all know ; the whole nation knows it—not by any ascertain¬ 
ment of facts ; facts would have done his business ; he was put 
there by the same operation that the canvassing board for the 
Hayes electors were declared appointed by ; and that State 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


247 


smarting under that outrage goes on and these acts are com¬ 
mitted. Is it a good way to produce a good feeling in that 
State to continue that irritation, to keep them under a govern¬ 
ment which cannot rest upon ascertained facts, which is based 
upon nothing but fraud and falsehood ? Is that a legal way, 
a prudent way, a statesman-like way of dealing with the dis¬ 
tempered condition of things in the South ? I submit it is 
not. . . . Peace in an American State where the government 
of that State is forced upon them by the villainy of four men ; 
peace under a government resting not upon ascertained facts, 
but upon ascertained falsehoods ! No; I submit to your 
honors that you hold the peace of that community in your 
hands, and that the 'performance of the legal duty devolving 
upon you to ascertain who were duly appointed electors of that 
State, will do more to quiet the sentiment and quell the dis¬ 
turbance existing there than a regiment of troops could do.’’ 

Mr. Trumbull presented in detail the offers of proof of fraud, 
which cover nearly seven closely printed columns of the Con¬ 
gressional Record. He fully explained the system provided 
by law in Louisiana for holding elections, and it is this : 
The governor appoints fifty-six supervisors of registration, 
one for each parish or county outside of Orleans; and these 
supervisors appoint the judges, or commissioners as they are 
called, of elections in their respective counties, and these com¬ 
missioners fix as many places as they choose for holding elec¬ 
tions. The law requires these commissioners to be of different 
parties. The returns of each voting place are required to be 
made up in duplicate by the commissioners of elections, one 
of which goes to the supervisor of registration for the county, 
from which he makes up a consolidated return of all the poll¬ 
ing places in his county, and sends it to the returning board 
of the State, which the law requires to be composed of five 
members, of different political parties, elected by the State 
Senate. ,The other duplicate of the commissioners, showing 
the returns of each polling place, is sent to the clerk of the 
courts of the parish. 

Such being the law, what are the facts as applicable to the 
election of Presidential electors in Louisiana in 1876 ? In the 


248 


SUPERIORITY OF 


first place Kellogg, who held the office of governor by fraud, 
appointed a supervisor of registration for each of the fifty-six 
parishes outside of Orleans ; and not one of them was a Demo¬ 
crat. Then, these several supervisors appointed the commis¬ 
sioners of election for their respective parishes, disregarding 
the legal provision that both parties should be represented. 
Duplicate returns were sent from each polling place in the 
several parishes ; one set to the clerk of courts, and the other 
set to the supervisor. The several supervisors made out con¬ 
solidated returns for their respective parishes, in many 
instances, however, entirely omitting from their consolidated 
statements the entire returns from particular polling places 
which returned large Democratic majorities. Having excluded 
enough, as they supposed, to assure the election of the Hayes 
electors, the county supervisors sent their returns, some of 
them doctored, as above stated, to the State Eeturning Board. 
It there appeared that the county supervisors had not gone 
far enough in their perjured villainy, for the returns still 
showed a majority averaging about 3,450 for the Tilden 
electors ! 

The State Eeturning Board, therefore, had fraudulent work 
to do, but they had years of training in political rascality 
and were equal to the emergency. There was a vacancy in 
the Board, but the four members assembled November 17th, 
1876 ; they were all Eepublicans, their notorious names being 
Wells, Andersok, Kenner, and Casanave. Their first 
legal duty was to fill the vacancy by the appointment of 
a Democrat; but this duty they omitted for the reason, as 
assigned by them, that they did not wish to have a Democrat 
to watch the proceedings of said Board.” They proceeded to 
employ clerks and assistants, five of whom were under crimi¬ 
nal indictment at the time : three for subornation ot perjury ; 
one for obtaining money by false pretenses ; and one for 
murder ! The four villains,” as Senator Carpenter called 
them, who composed the incomplete Board, with the aid of 
their criminal clerks and assistants, proceeded to ^‘canvass 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


249 


the returns,” already partially fixed ” by some of the parish 
supervisors. It was no trick at all ” for those infamous 
fellows to throw out enough of returns favorable to the Dem¬ 
ocrats to give the electoral vote of the State to the party of 
progress, of high moral ideas, having a moral sense,” as 
Foraker says, so lofty that it would not tolerate, or accept the 
fruits of, a crime against the ballot! 

The votes polled for theTilden electors, and returned by the 
commissioners from the several polling places, and which were 
fraudulently excluded from the final count, were as follows : 
for McEnery, 10,280 ; for Wicldifie, 10,293 ; for St. Martin, 
10,291 ; for Poche, 10,280 ; forDe Blance, 10,289 ; for Seay, 
10,291 ; for Cobb, 10,261 ; for Cross, 10,288. These votes 
were thrown out arbitrarily and fraudulently, as Senator Car¬ 
penter said, by a tribunal which had no jurisdiction to 
exclude a vote,” by four villains ” aided by a gang of con¬ 
scienceless conspirators then under criminal indictment; and 
the exclusion of these votes was not made under any pretense 
of compliance with any lawful authority, but solely upon 
the doctrine of absolute power,” in accordance with which 
Thaddeus Stevens justified his vote for the dismemberment 
of Virginia, and under which all the lawless measures of the 
Eepublican party have been justified. 

TJie returns from the several polling places as certified by the 
commissioners of elections, who received their commissions 
from supervisors appointed by Kellogg, and duplicates of which 
returns are on file in the several county clerks’ offices through¬ 
out Louisiana, show the state of the voting at the several 
polling places before the ‘"villains’’tampered with and fraud¬ 
ulently altered the returns ; and they show an average major¬ 
ity of about ten thousand for the Tilden electors. Upon the 
faith of returns made by the same commissioners of elections, 
at the same time, showing substantially the same Democratic 
majorities for the candidates for State oflicers, Nicholls was 
declared elected governor of the State over Packard, the 
Republican candidate : the claim of the latter to recognition 


260 


SUPERIORITY OF 


by fche federal goyernment being so manifestly unfounded 
that even President Grant refused to interfere to sustain him 
by military force. It was this fact that led Senator Conkling 
to make the bold declaration that the title of Hayes to the 
Presidency rested on no better foundation than the title of 
Packard to the governorship of Louisiana. Neither had any 
title except such as rested on perjury and palpable fraud ; and 
yet a partisan, majority of the Electoral Commission sustained 
the baseless title of Hayes, by the exercise of absolute 
power ” to suppress all offered proof of the frauds of the ‘‘ four 
villains’’ and their criminal assistants. 

The natural question that would be indignantly asked by 
any honest man, on first learning of these shameless proceed¬ 
ings, would be : What punishment was imposed upon the 
‘^four villains’’and their criminal assistants? The answer 
is, that, under the administration of the pious Hayes, Wells 
was sentenced to the office of Surveyor of the Port of New 
Orleans at an annual salary of 13,500 ; Anderson to the office 
of Deputy Collector of same port at a salary of $3,000 ; Ken¬ 
ner became a Deputy Naval Officer with a salary of $2,500 ; 
the clerks of the Returning Board were rewarded with clerk¬ 
ships in the Custom-House at salaries ranging from $1,095 to 
$2,500 ; and Wells’s two sons and Casanave’s brother were 
made government officials at salaries ranging from $1,095 to 
$2,500. 

In the face of the facts contained in this chapter, the cor- 
poration-and-trust-controlled convention of the high moral 
sense” party, at Chicago, recently exercised its '^absolute 
power” to ignore its party record, and make a hypocritical 
declaration in favor of “ a free ballot and a fair count ” ! In 
closing this lengthy chapter, which imperfectly reveals a few of 
the interferences of Republican ring-masters with the freedom 
of suffrage, the author can only say that the hundredth part 
has not been told. 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


251 


CHAPTEE XVIIL 

TARIFF LAWS AKD THE RELATIONS OF PARTIES THERETO. 

Perhaps no subject is more talked about, less accurately 
understood, and more designedly mystified than the tariff. 
^‘Free Trade’’ and ‘‘Tariff” are on every tongue, and in 
every newspaper; and the words are used as the basis of daily 
disputes amongst people who do not substantially disagree 
when they come to understand the substance of each other’s 
meaning. 

A tariff means “a schedule or table of duties or customs 
payable to the government on merchandise; ” and, in this 
country, it is applied to the duties collected at the United 
States custom-houses on articles imported into the country 
from abroad. If no duty at all is laid on an imported article, 
it is said to be “ on the free list; ” and trade in that article 
with the American people is free to all the world. If the duty 
on any article is so high that a merchant cannot pay it with¬ 
out making the article cost him more than he has to pay for 
a similar article in the home market, it is not profitable to 
import such article, and such duty is called a prohibitory tariff, 
because it practically puts an end to the importation of such 
articles. 

Between absolute free trade and a tariff so high as to cut 
off all foreign trade in any particular article, there are several 
degrees of duties which have come to be designated by dis¬ 
tinctive names. When such duties are levied on imported 
articles at substantially equal rates, without discrimination, 
and regardless of whether such articles are produced in this 
country or not, such system of duties is called a horizontal 
tariff; and it has for its object simply the collection of the 


252 


SUPERIORITY OF 


necessary revenue for the expenses of the government. When 
duties are levied upon articles produced in this country, in 
such way and at such rates that, while producing the neces¬ 
sary revenue for the uses of the government, they at the 
same time protect the home producer of such article from 
unfair foreign competition, such system of duties is called a 
tariff for revenue with incidental protection. Where duties 
are levied upon an article for the primary purpose of protect¬ 
ing the home producers of similar articles, whether the gov¬ 
ernment needs the revenue derived from such duties or not, 
such system of levying duties is called protection for the sake 
of protection.” 

It is plain that any duty levied on any article is a restriction 
upon the freedom of trade in that article ; and any duty, how¬ 
ever small, tends to give the home producer an advantage over 
his foreign competitor to the extent of the duty the latter has 
to pay, and from which the former is free. Whenever a duty 
on any article is sufficient to cover the difference in cost of 
production in this country and abroad, such duty effectually 
protects the home producer of such article against the advan¬ 
tage the foreign producer enjoys in the way of cheaper labor 
and lower cost of production. If an article can be produced 
in this country for $100, and by reason of cheaper labor the 
same article can be produced in England for $75, it would 
seem plain enough that a tariff requiring the payment of a 
duty of $25 on the foreign article would put $25 into the gov¬ 
ernment treasury, and at the same time protect the home 
producer against any unfair competition from abroad. If the 
duty were raised to $50 on the same article, no merchant who 
was compelled to pay it could afford to compete with the 
home producers ; consequently there would be no importations 
of such articles, and no revenue therefrom to the government, 
although there would be excessive protection to the American 
producer. Such duty would be a great benefit to the few indi¬ 
viduals engaged in the production of such excessively pro¬ 
tected article, but it would almost inevitably be a burden on all 


DEMOCRATIC AD3IINISTRATI0N. 


253 


who purchase aud use such article, because trade in that article 
would be restricted to home producers; and, if such home 
producers can come to an understanding with each other so as 
to prevent competition amongst themselves, they can keep up 
prices to the very limit of their excessive protection. These 
combinations of people and corporations engaged in the same 
industries for the purpose of keeping up prices, by preventing 
competition amongst themselves, are called trusts’^ and 
‘Spools” and ‘^combines” and ‘^syndicates” and the like 
common names, and they constitute one of the great evils of 
the present age. They may exist, and do exist, amongst pro¬ 
ducers of, and dealers in, articles that are free from duties; 
they exist in free trade England, but, nevertheless, it will 
appear, as we proceed, that excessive duties, or “protection 
for the sake of protection,” greatly aids such combinations, 
which are to the manifest detriment of people who do not 
belong to them. 

The policy of the government from the time of its organiza¬ 
tion, under the administration of all parties, has been to collect 
the revenue chiefly from duties on foreign imports. On three 
extraordinary occasions during our existence as a government, 
excise duties, or internal revenue taxes, have been resorted to 
when revenue was required in excess of the amount received 
from customs ; but the chief reliance has been upon customs, 
and such policy will no doubt continue as long as the govern¬ 
ment exists ; and so long as this plan of collecting revenue 
continues, there must always be a tariff on some articles of 
foreign importation. There seems to be no difference amongst 
the people, or their party leaders, upon the propriety of raising 
the government revenue chiefly from customs ; but they do 
differ with respect to the particular articles that ought to be 
put on the free list, and with respect to the rates of duties 
which ought to be imposed on such articles as are made duti¬ 
able. Every American producer of any article naturally de¬ 
sires to shut out foreign competition by a high duty, think¬ 
ing thereby to maintain a high price on his own product; and 


254 


SUPERIORITY OF 


every American non-prodncer of an article, subject to foreign 
competition, naturally desires to have the benefit of such com¬ 
petition from abroad, so that he may buy what he needs, and 
does not produce, at the lowest prices. 

Witli this statement of general principles, let us see how 
they have been practically applied, and what has been the expe¬ 
rience of the American people for nearly a century in connec¬ 
tion with tariff laws. 

When the government was organized in 1789, a large debt, 
contracted in carrying on the War of Independence, had to be 
provided for ; and revenue was needed to meet current expen¬ 
ses. The population was less than 4,000,000, and the debt 
exceeded $75,000,000. The want of money was the first need 
for which the first congress had to make provision. The 
government owned a vast region of unimproved land ; but it 
was not surveyed, and there were no purchasers for it. It 
had nothing else to sell ; hence some form of taxation must 
be adopted to meet the urgent demand for money. Direct 
taxation was never popular, and it was determined to pursue 
the policy of raising revenue from customs or duties levied on 
articles of foreign importation. That first congress was com¬ 
posed largely of members who had taken part in the formation, 
adoption and ratification of the constitution ; and rival polit¬ 
ical parties had not then been organized. Amongst the lead¬ 
ing members of that congress were intellectual giants, unselfish 
patriots and experienced statesmen, and they must be pre¬ 
sumed to have understood the constitution which they had 
assisted in making, and every important provision of which 
had been fully discussed and carefully considered. 

The second Act passed by that congress was a tariff law, 
which President Washington approved July 4th, 1789. The 
urgent demand for indispensable revenue induced the speedy 
enactment of that law ; but extreme care was taken to adjust 
the duties thereby provided, so that in producing the indis¬ 
pensable revenue, home manufacturers would receive encour¬ 
agement and protection ; and that purpose is explicitly 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


255 


declared in the preamble of the Act. James Madison was 
one of the most conspicuous supporters of the measure, in 
which he was aided by the leading men, North and South. 
There could not haye been a more explicit recognition of the 
constitutional right of congress to discriminate in favor of 
home industries in the levying of duties on foreign imports. 

The same congress levied internal revenue taxes, or an excise 
duty on certain home productions ; but these internal revenue 
taxes were abolished by the first Democratic congress daring 
Jefferson’s administration, and at his earnest solicitation. 

When the war of 1812 came on, and additional revenue was 
required, a tremendous increase was made in the duties, which 
had already been modified, and generally increased, and new 
articles made dutiable, between 1789 and 1812. The new war 
tariff bill simply doubled all the duties provided by the then 
existing laws, and added an additional ten per cent, on all 
dutiable articles imported on foreign vessels, besides a tonnage 
tax of $1.50 per ton on the vessel. This Act was temporary in 
its operation, and expressly provided that the increased duties 
should cease within one year after the close of the war. This 
Act was passed by a congress composed largely of Democrats, 
and approved by a Democratic president. Like the original 
Act of 1789, its passage was induced by a pressing need of 
revenue. The Federalists, who opposed the war, opposed this 
act, and it met with radical hostility from the people of New 
England on the ground that it seriously interfered with their 
shipping and commercial interests. Its chief opponent in con¬ 
gress was Daniel Webster, while it was warmly supported by 
Clay and Calhoun, both of whom were then conspicuous Dem¬ 
ocratic leaders. 

Next came the Tariff Act of 1816, enacted by a congress 
composed almost exclusively of Democrats, the Federalist party 
having then ceased to exist as a national organization, and 
Monroe having been elected President that year by a vote of 
183 to 34 in the electoral college. Of this Act, Mr. Blaine 
says, Vol. I., page 190 : 




256 


SUPERIORITY OF 


^‘The tariff of 1816 was termed 'moderately pptective/ 
but even in that form it encountered the opposition of the 
commercial interest. It was followed in the country by severe 
depression in all departments of trade, not because the duties 
loere not in themselves sufficiently high, hut from the fact that 
it followed the war tariff, and the change was so great as to 
produce not only a reaction but a revolution in the financial 
condition of the country.” 

Here is a most significant statement coming from the great 
modern protectionist leader ; and shows that the history of 
the tariff legislation of 1812 and 1816, has an important bear¬ 
ing on the present proposed legislation. The war tariff of 
1812 gave public warning on its face of its temporary charac¬ 
ter ; it was to expire within one year after the peace ; and yet 
it produced tlie natural result of all excessive duties. It drew 
capital and enterprise from the natural channels of business 
and trade, creating an unnatural and excessive stimulation of 
the over-protected industries, so that, although it contained 
plain notice of its temporary duration, the race for wealth led 
to the advance of favored industries far beyond the require¬ 
ments of the government and of the people in times of peace ; 
and the subsequent adjustment of production and trade to 
natural channels brought about derangement and depression. 
In all cases of excessive stimulation, there must be a gradual 
return to natural and healthy conditions ; and that is why the 
existing war tariff, with its unnatural and temporary stimu¬ 
lation of excessively protected industries, should be subjected 
to gradual modifications, just as President Cleveland has 
recommended in his famous message, and as the Democratic 
majority in congress are attempting by the much abused Mills 
Bill—a bill that may possibly be defective in some of its details, 
as has been the case with all tariff measures, but which is 
highly meritorious in its general aim of reducing excessive 
war duties, by judicious modification, to a point adapted to 
the requirements of the people and of the government in time 
of peace. 

Webster opposed the high war duties of 1812 on the ground. 



DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


257 


as Mr. Blaine states, that it tended to depress commerce 
and curtail the profits of the carrying trade,” in which his 
constituents were at that time chiefly interested, instead of 
manufactures, in which the people of New England are now 
largely engaged. It is certain that American vessels have for¬ 
saken the foreign carrying trade during the still continuing 
period of excessive war duties ; and those who connect the 
practical destruction of our merchant marine with the Repub¬ 
lican policy of maintaining such duties in times of peace, are 
not advancing any new or unsupported theory. It was Web¬ 
ster’s theory. 

Another fact to be considered in connection with the crip¬ 
pling of unnaturally promoted American industries, under the 
operation of the tariff of 1816, is this : British trade had 
been paralysed by the hostile decrees and embargoes incident 
to a long period of war, during which her manufacturers had 
accumulated immense unmarketed stores of products, to which 
the peace of 1815 and the tariff of 1816 opened an outlet. 
These accumulated products were thrown upon the American 
market at prices far leloiv cost, for the double purpose of 
getting rid of old goods, and creating a temporary and un¬ 
natural competition tending to ruin American rivals in the 
same industries. This influx of products at prices below the 
cost of production was necessarily temporary ; but it con¬ 
tributed largely to the depression of rival American industries 
at that time. 

The next Tariff Act was that of 1824, which followed the 
period of reaction and readjustment of business affairs incident 
to the hasty discontinuance of the war duties of 1812. Of 
this measure, Mr. Blaine says, Vol. I., page 191 : 

^^The act of 1824 was avowedly protective in its character, 
and was adopted through the influence of Mr. Clay, then 
Speaker of the House of Representatives. His most effi¬ 
cient ally on the floor was Mr. Buchanan of Pennsylvania 
who exerted himself vigorously in aid of the measure. Mr. 
Webster again appeared in the debate, arguing against the 
17 


258 


SUPERIORITY OF 


^obsolete and exploded notion of protection/ and carrying 
with him nearly the whole vote of Massachusetts in opposition. 
Mr. Clay was enabled to carry the entire Kentucky delegation 
for the high protective tariff, and Mr. Calhoun’s views having 
meanwhile undergone a radical change, South Carolina was 
found to be unanimous in opposition, and cordially co-operat¬ 
ing with Massachusetts in support of free trade. The effect of 
the tariff was undoubtedly favorable to the general prosperity, 
and during the administration of John Quincy Adams every 
material interest of the country improved. The result was 
that the supporters of the i^rotective system, congratulating 
themselves upon the effect of the work of 1824, proceeded 
in 1828 to levy still higher duties. They applied the doctrine 
of protection ito the raw materials of the country, the wool, the 
hemp, and all unmanufactured articles which by any possibility 
could meet with damaging competition from abroad. 

It was indeed an era of high duties, of which strange as 
it may seem to the modern reader, Silas Wright of New York 
and James Buchanan of Pennsylvania appeared as the most 
strenuous defenders, and were personally opposed in debate 
by John Davis of Massachusetts and Peleg Sprague of Maine. 
To add to the entanglement of public opinion, Mr. Webster 
passed over to the side of ultra protection and voted for the 
bill, finding himself in company with Martin Van Buren of 
New York, and Thomas H. Benton of Missouri. It was an 
extraordinary commingling of political elements, in which it 
is difficult to find a line of partition logically consistent either 
with geographical or political divisions.” 

This Act gave rise to the discontent which culminated in 
the Nullification measures of South Carolina, which led to the 
passage of the Act of July, 1832, providing fora considerable 
reduction of duties, and this was followed in 1833 by the 
adoption of Clay’s famous compromise tariff bill, which pro¬ 
vided for the gradual reduction of all duties in excess of 
twenty per cent. 

Next came the tariff act of 1842, which, Mr. Blaine says, 

was strongly protective in its character, though not so ex¬ 
treme as the act of 1828.” At page 193, Vol. I., of Blaine’s 
Book, it is said with reference to the supporters and oppo¬ 
nents of this measure : 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


259 


The vote showed, as all tariff bills before had, and as all 
since hpe shown, that the local interest of the constituency 
determines in large measure the vote of the representative; 
that planting sections grow more and more towards free- 
trade and manufacturing sections more and more towards 
protection.’’ 

The next tariff Act was that of 1846, known as the Walker 
Tariff,” which provided for reduced duties. The advantage¬ 
ous effects of that tariff will be considered in the next chapter. 
It continued in operation for eleven years of great industrial 
and general prosperity. Instead of the treasury becoming 
bankrupt under its operation, it produced revenue in excess 
of the wants of the government, and led to the Act of 1857, 
providing for further reduction of duties. Referring to the 
Act of 1857, Mr. Blaine, at pages 196-7, Vol. I., says : 

‘^By this law the duties were placed lower than they had 
been at any time since the war of 1812. The Act was well 
S received by the people, and was indeed concurred in by a con¬ 
siderable proportion of the Republican party. . . . Mr. Seward 
voted against it, but his colleague, Mr. Hamilton Fish, voted 
■ for it. Mr. Sumner and Mr. Wilson both voted for it, as did 
; also Senator Allen of Rhode Island, the direct representative 
; of the manufacturers of that State. Mr. Bell of New Hamp- 
: shire voted for it, while Senators Oollamer and Foote of Ver- 
I mont voted against it. Mr. Fessenden did not oppose it, but 
! his colleague, Mr. Nourse, voted against it. The Connecticut 
senators, Foster and Toucey, one of each party, supported the 
measure. In the House, the New England representatives 
generally voted for the bill, but Mr. Morrill of Vermont op¬ 
posed it". . . . Humphrey Marshall and Samuel F. Swope of 
Kentucky were the only representatives from slave States who 
voted in the negative .... It was an extraordinary political 
oombination that brought the senators from Massachusetts and 
the senators from South Carolina, the representatives fron New 
England and the representatives from the cotton States, to 
support the same tariff bill.” 

The next tariff measure was the Morrill Tariff Bill passed 
March 2d, 1861, and approved by President Buchanan. The 
history of this bill as given in Blaine’s Book, Vol. I., beginning 



260 


SUPERIORITY OF 


with page 275, is as follows : It was prepared in committee 
and reported to the House by Mr. Morrill of Vermont. There 
was a deficiency of revenue to meet the expenses of the govern¬ 
ment. To check this increasing deficit,” says Mr. Blaine, 

the House insisted on a scale of duties that would yield a 
larger revenue, and on the 10th of May, 1860, passed the bill. 
In the Senate, then under the control of the Democratic party, 
with the South in the lead, the bill encountered opposition.” 
The defeat of all action on the bill in the Senate at that ses¬ 
sion is charged to Senator Hunter of Virginia. At the next 
session, after the senators from the seceded States had with¬ 
drawn, the bill was taken up again, and Mr. Blaine says : 

Mr. Hunter’s opposition was not relaxed, but his support¬ 
ers were gone. Opposition was thus rendered powerless, and 
the first important step towards changing the tariff system 
from low duties to high duties, from free trade to protection, 
was taken by the passage of the Morrill Bill on the second day 
of March, 1861. Mr. Buchanan was within forty-eight hours 
of the close of his term and he j^romptly and cheerfidly signed 
the hillP 

In reference to the passage of this bill by the House at the 
preceding session, Mr. Blaine says, page 275 : 

This action was not taken as an avowed movement for 
protection, hut merely as a measure to increase the revenue, 

It was passed by a Eepublican congress, and became a law 
by the prompt and cheerful approval of a Democratic Presi¬ 
dent. Subject to modifications which generally increased the 
duties, but without radical changes, this Morrill tariff law, 
which Mr. Blaine says marks the point of change of policy 
from low duties to high duties, remained in force during a 
period of more than twenty years. While the law was still in 
force, on December 4th, 1882, President Arthur submitted 
his annual message to the Forty-Seventh congress, at its second 
session. The senate was composed of 37 Kepublicans, 37 
Democrats, 1 Independent, and Mahone ; the House was com- 



DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


261 


posed of 152 Republicans, 129 Democrats, 10 Nationals, and 2 
Re-adjusters. In his message President Arthur said, referring 
to the report of the Secretary of the Treasury : 

I heartily approve the Secretary’s recommendation of im¬ 
mediate and extensive reductions in the annual revenues of the 
government. It will be remembered that I urged upon the 
attention of congress at its last session the imi)ortance of re¬ 
lieving the industry and enterprise of the country from the 
pressure of unnecessary taxation. ... If the tax on 
domestic spirits is to be retained, it is plain, therefore, that 
large reductions from the customs revenue are entirely feasible. 
While recommending this reduction, I am far from advising 
the abandonment of the policy of so discriminating in the 
adjustment of details as to afford aid and protection to domes¬ 
tic labor. But the present system should he so revised as to 
equalize the public burden among all classes and occupations, 

AND BRING IT INTO CLOSER HARMONY WITH THE PRESENT 
NEEDS OP INDUSTRY. Without entering into minute detail, 
which under present circumstances is quite unnecessary, I 
recommend an enlargement of the free list so as to include 
within it the numerous articles which yield inconsiderable 
revenue, a simplification of the complex and inconsistent 
schedule of duties upon certain manufactures, particularly 
those of cotton, iron and steel, and a substantial reduction of 
the duties upon those articles, and upon sugar, molasses, silk, 
wool, and woolen goods.” 

How was this plain recommendation of a Republican Presf- 
dent received ? Was its author denounced as a free-trader, a 
disciple of the Cobden Club, an ally of Great Britain, an 
enemy of his country, and the deadly foe of American labor ? 
Nothing of the kind. He was a stalwart Republican, and the 
Republican congress to which he addressed his urgent recom¬ 
mendation of ‘^immediate and extensive reductions” of cus¬ 
toms taxation upon the industry and enterprise of the 
country,” promptly took up the subject so urgently pressed 
upon tlieir attention, and passed the Tariff Act of 1883, which 
provided for an estimated reduction of the annual revenue to 
the extent of about sixty millions of dollars. In the senate, 
Cameron of Pennsylvania and Van Wyck of Nebraska ere 



262 


SUPERIORITY OF 


the only Eepublicans who voted against the bill; and in the 
House, but twelve Republican members out of one hundred 
and fifty-two voted against it. Were all the other Republican 
members of that congress enemies of their country, allies 
of England, and free-traders ? No such accusation was ever 
made against them. They were Republicans, and it is only 
when Democrats propose a measure for relieving the industry 
and enterprise of the country from the pressure of unneces¬ 
sary taxation,” that we hear a loud and unremitting cry of 

free-trade,” ‘^British allies,” enemies of labor,” and simi¬ 
lar nonsense. 

Following the enactment of the Tariff Act of 1883, Presi¬ 
dent Arthur submitted his third annual message to congress, 
on December 4th, 1883. The first session of the Forty-Eighth 
congress had convened the preceding day. The senate was 
composed of 40 Republicans and 36 Democrats ; the House of 
201 Democrats, 119 Republicans, 4 Independents, and 1 Green- 
backer. (The political complexion of the Forty-Seventh and 
Forty-Eighth congress, the vote on the Tariff Act of 1883, and 
the extracts from President Arthur’s messages, given in this 
chapter, are taken from ‘‘McPherson’s Hand Book of Politics 
for 1884.”) In his message of December 4th, 1883, referring 
to the report of the Secretary of the Treasury, President 
Arthur said : 

“ If the revenue for the fiscal year which will end on June 
30th, 1885, be estimated on the basis of existing laws, the 
Secretary is of the opinion that for that year the receipts will 
exceed by $60,000,000 the ordinary expenditures, including 
the amount devoted to the sinking fund. Hitherto the sur¬ 
plus as it has rapidly accumulated has been devoted to the 
reduction of the national debt. As a result the only bonds 
now outstanding which are redeemable at the pleasure of the 
government are the 3 per cents, amounting to about $305,- 
000,000. 

“ The 4| per cents., amounting to $-150,000,000, and the 
$737,000,000 (of) 4 per cents, are not payable until 1891 and 
1907, respectively. 

“ If the surplus shall hereafter be as large as the Treasury 


DEMOCRATIC AD^IINISTRATION. 


263 


estimates now indicate, the 3 per cent, bonds may all be 
redeemed at least four years before any of the 4^ per cents 
can be called in. The latter, at the same rate of accumnlation 
of surplus, can be paid at maturity, and the mone 3 ^s requisite 
for the redemption of the 4 per cents will be in the Treasury 
many years before those obligations become payable. There 
are cogent reasons^ however, ivhy the national indebtedness 
should not be thus rapidly extinguished. Chief among them 
is the fact that only by excessive taxation is such rapid¬ 
ity ATTAINABLE. 

In a communication to the congress at its last session I 
recommended that all excise taxes be abolished, except those 
relating to distilled spirits, and that substantial reductions 
be also made in the revenues from customs. A statute has 
since been enacted by which the annual tax and tariff receipts 
of the government have been cut down to the extent of at 
least fifty or sixty millions of dollars. 

While I have no doubt that still further reductions may 
be wisely made, I do not advise the adoption at this session 
of any measures for large diminution of the national 
revenues. The results of the legislation of the last session 
of the congress have not yet become sufficiently apparent to 
justify any radical revision or sweeping modifications of 
existing law.” 

The existing law” was the bill reported by the Com¬ 
mittee of Conference of the two Houses of congress, and 
passed by both Houses on March 3d, 1883, and it still remains 
the existing law at this date (July 28th, 1888). If a Demo¬ 
cratic President had written the substance of the foregoing 
extract from President Arthur’s message, what a rabid free¬ 
trader and incurable enemy of labor he would have been ! 

A bill for amendment of the existing law ” relating to 
duties on foreign imports was reported to the Lower House of 
congress to which the foregoing message was addressed. It 
is known as the Morrison Bill,” and it provided for an 
enlargement of the free list, and for a uniform reduction of 
twenty per cent, upon the duties levied under the Act of 
1883 ; and from its provisions for uniform reductions it was 
characterized by the Republicans as a ^Hiorizontal tariff 
measure.” This bill was defeated in the Lower House on 


264 


SUPERIORITY OF 


May 6th, 1884, by a Yote of 159 to 155, ten members 
not Yotiog. Forty-one Democrats Yoted with the majority 
of the Eepublican members in faYor of striking out 
the enacting clause, and four Eepublicans Yoted with the 
majority of the Democratic members against that motion. 
The motion prcYailed, and the bill fell without CYcr reaching 
the Senate. 

Within one month after the defeat of the ‘^Morrison Bill,’’ 
and six months after the date of President Arthur’s message 
last aboYC quoted from, and when the Tariff Act of 1883 had 
been in existence fifteen months, the Eepublican National 
OonYention met at Chicago on June 3d, 1884, to formulate 
a platform and nominate candidates for the Presidential cam¬ 
paign. The sixth article of the platform adopted by that 
coiiYention is as follows, to wit: 

6. The Eepublican party pledges itself to correct the 
irregularities of the tariff and to reduce the surplus, not by 
the Yicious and indiscriminate process of horizontal reduction, 
but by such methods as will relieve the tax-payer without 
injuring the laborer or the great productive interests of the 
country. ” 

That convention of representative Eepublicans carefully 
avoided any explicit statement of what was meant by ‘‘such 
methods ” as they pledged themselves to adopt, simply because, 
as has since been plainly developed, the Eeimblicans are unable 
to agree upon any “method” of reducing the duties on im¬ 
ports ; but the party, through its convention, explicitly put 
itself upon record against the so-called “ process of horizontal 
reduction,” and it just as explicitly pledged itself “ to reduce 
the surplus ” by some method, and to correct the admitted 
“irregularities of the tariff ”as provided by the existing Act 
of 1883, which was then in force, and still continues in force, 
on account of the failure of the representatives of that party 
in congress to redeem, or assist in redeeming, the pledge it 
made in the sixth article of its platform of 1884. 

On the 8th of July, 1884. the Democratic National Con- 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


265 


vention met at Chicago for the purpose of adopting a platform 
and nominating candidates for the Presidential campaign. 
The declaration of that Democratic Convention upon the 
subject of revision of the tariff Act of 1883 is as follows, to 
wit : 

The Democratic party is pledged to revise the tariff in a 
spirit of fairness to all interests ; but, in making reductions 
in taxes, it is not proposed to injure any domestic industries, 
but rather to promote their healthy growth. From the foun¬ 
dation of this government taxes collected at the Custom 
House have been the chief source of federal revenue. Such 
they must continue to he. Moreover, many industries have 
come to rely on legislation for successful continuance, so that 
any cliange of law must be at every step regardful of the 
labor and capital thus involved. The process of reform must 
be subject in the execution to this plain dictate of justice— 
all taxation should be limited to the requirements of eco¬ 
nomical government. The necessary reduction in taxation 
can and must be effected without depriving American labor 
of the ability to compete successfully with foreign labor, and 
without imposing lower rates of duty than will be ample to 
cover any increased cost of production which may exist in 
consequence of the higher rate of wages prevailing in this 
country. Sufficient revenue to pay all the expenses of the 
federal government economically administered, including pen¬ 
sions, interest, and principal of the public debt, can be got 
under our present system of taxation from Custom House 
taxes on fewer imported articles, bearing heaviest on articies 
of luxury, and bearing lightest on articles of necessity. We, 
therefore, denounce the abuses of the existing tariff; and 
subject to the preceding limitations, we demand that federal 
taxation shall be exclusively for public purposes, and shall 
not exceed the needs of the government economically admin¬ 
istered. ’’ 

It is thus shown that both of the great rival political parties 
recognized the imperfections of the existing tariff law, the 
one denouncing it as fraught with “abuses,” and the other 
characterizing its imperfections as “irregularities ; ” and both 
parties went before the country in the great campaign of 
1884 pledged to revise the existing law and to reduce the 
surplus. 


266 


SUPERIORITY OF 


Hugh McCullough, the last Republican Secretary of the 
Treasury, in his annual report to President Arthur for the 
year 1884, when the existing law had been in force nearly two 
years, entered into a full discussion of the subject of tariff 
reform, and concluded it with the following recommendations : 

First .—That the existing duties upon raw materials which 
are used in manufactures should be removed. This can be 
done in the interest of our foreign trade. 

Second .—Thnt the duties upon the articles used or con¬ 
sumed by those who are least able to bear the burden of taxa¬ 
tion should be reduced. This also can be effected without 
prejudice to our export trade.” 

It will be seen from the foregoing facts that, in 1884, the 
Democrats and Republicans were in substantial harmony in 
their official and public declarations and pledges upon the 
subject of tariff reform. It will appear in the next chapter 
that the Democrats have consistently endeavored to carry out 
their pledges by the passage of the Mills Bill, while the Re¬ 
publicans, under the domination of ultra protection monopo¬ 
lists, have taken a new departure into a field far removed from 
the purpose of ‘‘relieving the industry and enterprise of the 
country from the pressure of unnecessary taxation.” 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION, 


267 


CHAPTER XIX. 

THE MILLS BILL.—ARGUMEJ^TS FOR AMD AGAIHST IT. 

It appears in the last preceding chapter that on December 
4th, 1883, President Arthur looked forward with concern to 
the prospect of sixty millions of receipts in excess of the ex¬ 
penditures required for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1885 ; 
and that the only outstanding bonds on December 4th, 1883, 
that were redeemable at the pleasure of the government, were 
the $305,000,000 of 3 per cents. 

When the Fiftieth congress met, four years afterwards, these 
3 per cent, bonds had all been paid, and there was a con¬ 
stantly growing surplus in the Treasury; which, according to 
the Secretary, would reach about one hundred and forty 
millions at the end of the fiscal year closing June 30th, 1888. 
An overflowing public treasury is not evidence of public 
prosperity; but it is conclusive proof of excessive taxation, 
because the contents of the Treasury come from taxation, di¬ 
rect or indirect. The mammoth surplus confronting Presi¬ 
dent Cleveland, when congress met in December, 1887, was 
twice as large as the prospective surplus to which President 
Arthur looked forward with grave apprehension in Decem¬ 
ber, 1883. The high tariff duties were drawing all of that 
surplus money from the pockets of the people, who needed it; 
while the government did not need a cent of it. The public 
debt had been funded, under Rejniblican management, on 
such terms that none of the government bonds were due until 
1891 ; and the bond-holders would not surrender their bonds, 
and receive the money for which they called, unless the gov¬ 
ernment would pay them the premium they could get by sell¬ 
ing their bonds in the market. In other words, the public 


268 


SUPERIORITY OF 


debt had been funded, under Republican administration, on 
such terms that not a dollar of it can be paid without paying a 
premium to the bond-holders ; and the people generally be¬ 
lieve that the bond-holders have been already sufficiently 
favored by the government, without paying them a premium 
in addition to the interest and principal called, for by their 
contracts. A surplus in the Treasury means excessive taxation 
of the people, and it is a constant temptation to extravagance, 
and to that greedy class of plunderers and bribers who are 
constantly plotting schemes for the expenditure of the public 
money. 

The honest and just plan for preventing an unnecessary 
accumulation of idle and tempting millions of the people’s 
money in the Treasury, is simply to leave it in the pockets of 
the people to whom it belongs, many of whom earn their 
proportion of it by hard labor. It is taken from them, under 
existing laws, chiefly in tlie form of duties which the con¬ 
sumer eventually pays on imported articles. A reduction of 
those duties plainly leaves more money in the pockets of the 
people, where it is needed, and puts less money in the public 
treasury, where it is not needed. The existing rates of duties 
on many articles of importation are too high, because they 
produce more revenue than the government requires or can 
honestly use, and they are higher than is necessary to cover 
the difference in cost of production of such articles in this 
country and abroad. Indeed, duties are now needlessly levied 
on some articles, such as tin, that are not produced in this 
country. 

With a tariff law imposing unnecessary duties on many 
articles of common use, and an enormous surplus in the 
Treasury constantly growing by reason of such burdensome 
duties. President Cleveland presented his famous message to 
congress, in December, 1887, earnestly urging a judicious re¬ 
vision of the tariff law, which both parties had expressly 
pledged tliemselves to revise. He did not recommend free 
trade, nor anything injurious to any American industry, nor 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION, 


269 


anything that would reduce, or tend to reduce, the wages of 
labor. He recommended the very reverse, in the language 
following, extracted from his message, to wit : 

It is not proposed to entirely relieve the country of this 
taxation. It must be extensively continued as the source of 
the government’s income, and in a re-adjustment of our tariff 
the interest of American labor engaged in manufacture should 
be carefully considered, as well as the preservation of our 
manufacturers. It may be called protection, or by any other 
name, but relief from the hardships and dangers of our 
present tariff laws should be devised with especial precaution 
against imperiling the existence of our manufacturing in¬ 
terests. ” 

It is easy to charge that President Cleveland is a free¬ 
trader, and that his Tammany letter is inconsistent with his 
message ; but, fortunately, American voters are generally able 
to read, and anybody of ordinary intelligence can under¬ 
stand the President’s language, as contained in the foregoing 
extract. In conformity with the President’s recommendation, 
the Mills Bill was prepared in committee and reported to the 
House. The general plan of reform embodied in the bill as 
reported consists chiefly of three parts, viz.: First, it places 
on the free list certain classes of articles from the importation 
of which duties were collected last yeflr to an amount exceed¬ 
ing $22,000,000—consisting chiefly of flax, hemp, jute, chemi¬ 
cals, salt, tin-plate and wool; second, it reduces the existing 
duties on certain other classes of articles to such extent that, 
if the same quantities thereof are imported hereafter as during 
the past year, the revenue derived therefrom will amount to 
upwards of $30,000,000 less than the duties paid last year on 
similar articles—such reductions being estimated at about 
$878,000 off chemicals, $1,756,000 off earthen and glass 
wares, $11,480,000 off sugar, $331,000 off provisions, $227,000 
off cotton goods, $2,042,000 off manufactures of hemp, jute 
and flax, $12,330,000 off woolen goods, $3,000 off books and 
paper, and the balance off. sundry articles, including manu- 


270 


SUPERIORITY OF 


facfcures of iron and steel; third, it makes reductions of the 
internal revenue taxes to the extent of about $24,455,000. 

The bill led to a protracted debate, which was conducted 
with consummate ability on both sides, and resulted in the 
modification of the bill in some of its details, without altera¬ 
tion of its general features as above presented. The speeches 
of Mills, McMillan; Wilson, Scott, Breckinridge and Carlisle, 
on the one side, and of Kelley, Burrows, McKinley and 
Eeed, on the other side, contain the principal arguments, 
for and against the measure, and they are substantially as 
follows, to wit : 

1. It is objected that the adoption of the measure would 
not decrease the revenue, because, it is contended, the re¬ 
duced duties would result in such increased importations, 
that more revenue would be collected than under the existing 
law ; and that, therefore, the only practical way to reduce the 
revenue is to increase the duties to rates sufficiently high to 
practically prohibit importations, by making it unprofitable 
to bring in the dutiable articles from abroad. 

This novel objection is at variance with the policy and 
understanding of the statesmen of all parties for nearly a 
century. It has been the uniform practice to increase the 
duties when additional revenue was required to meet unusual 
expenses, and to lower the duties when the revenue derived 
therefrom exceeded the wants of the government. It was 
the plan recommended by President Arthur and adopted by 
the Republican congress that passed the existing tariff law in 
1883 ; and by the same party in 1861. Of course, the amount 
of revenue that will be derived from the articles on which 
the duties have been reduced, but not entirely abolished, 
cannot be definitely known in advance, as it depends on the 
quantity of such articles that may be imported ; but, as already 
stated, the Mills Bill is drawn in pursuance of the heretofore 
approved plan of reducing duties whenever it is desirable to 
reduce the revenue, and increasing duties when additional 
revenue is required. 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION, 


271 


In any event, no revenue would be derived from the impor¬ 
tation of articles j)laced on the free list, nor from the internal 
taxes proposed to be abolished ; so that the reduction cannot 
possibly fall short of nearly $50,000,000. 

2. It is objected that the Mills Bill is a step in tlie direc¬ 
tion of absolute free trade ; that it will be followed by further 
reductions until duties on imports shall be totally abolished 
and direct taxation substituted as the plan of collecting the 
necessary revenue. 

In answer to this objection it is said, in the language of the 
Democratic platform of 1884, ^^from the foundation of the 
government, taxes collected at the Custom House have been 
the chief source of federal revenue, and such they must con¬ 
tinue to he”; that the Mills Bill is in no sense a blow at the 
system of collecting the revenue from duties on imports, but 
merely a judicious reduction of duties that are now excessive, 
and so small in amount as to leave the rates of duties amply 
high to produce all the revenue required, and at the same 
time adequately protect home industries against unfair compe¬ 
tition from abroad ; and that, while moderate reductions in the 
rates of duties cannot bring about a necessity for direct taxa¬ 
tion, such necessity must inevitably result from the adoption 
of the Eepublican policy of increasing duties to the point of 
excluding importations, and thereby cutting off all revenue 
from customs. 

3. It is objected that the proposed reduction of duties will 
cripple home industries, by bringing them into ruinous com¬ 
petition with rival foreign industries operated by cheaper 
labor, and that it would make it necessary to reduce the wages 
of American labor to the level of wages abroad. This is the 
great argument against any reduction of duties, and it is ab¬ 
solutely without merit as applied to the Mills Bill. 

In the first place, it has been asserted again and again on 
the Democratic side of the House, and it has not been con¬ 
troverted in any Republican speech the author has read, that 
the Mills Bill preserves a duty on every dutiable article high 


272 


SUPERIORITY OF 


enougli to fully cover the difference in cost of production at 
home and abroad. If that be true, as it is believed to be, 
then the Mills Bill is to all intents and purposes a protective 
tariff bill; and protective to as full extent as any tariff law 
should be. If duties in excess of the difference in cost of 
production are maintained, it gives the home producer an 
unjust advantage, not simply over his foreign competitor to 
whom we owe nothing, but over the millions of our own peo¬ 
ple who are not engaged in such excessively protected indus¬ 
tries. It is argued that preference should be given to home 
producers rather than to their British rivals, and nobody 
makes any question upon that point. It is not for the sake 
of the English manufacturer that the American people de¬ 
mand a reduction of excessive duties; it is for their own 
sakes that they demand competition in trade, so that exces¬ 
sive prices may not be exacted by home producers, who, when 
freed from foreign competition, form combinations amongst 
themselves and require our own countrymen to pay excessive 
prices for home productions. It is not enmity to home in¬ 
dustries that leads our people to demand access to foreign 
productions on fair terms ; it is for our own protection against 
the unjust exactions and greed of home producers who shield 
themselves from fair competition behind excessive duties, 
which deny our people the privilege of buying from any per¬ 
son other than the pets of excessive protectionists. It is ex¬ 
cessive j^rotection that the framers of the Mills Bill seek to re¬ 
form, for the benefit of the masses of our own people, and 
regardless of British producers ; and, in the reform proposed, 
ample duties are retained to enable the American producer to 
maintain the existing rates of wages and still be able to pro¬ 
duce his manufactures cheaper than the Englishman can 
produce a similar article and bring it, duty paid, into the 
American market. When home producers take advantage 
of high duties, as they almost invariably do, to put up 
prices on their own countrymen, the people have the 
right to demand the privilege of seeking what they require 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


273 


in any market of the world without unreasonable restric¬ 
tions. 

4. The reductions in rates of duties proposed by the Mills 
Bill are opposed on the ground that protection builds up home 
industries, and creates competition amongst home producers 
to such extent that prices to the consumer are thereby re¬ 
duced. This captivating argument, as used by extreme pro¬ 
tectionists, is grossly fallacious. They point exultingly to 
many articles that are sold in the American market at prices 
actually less than the duty on such article, and they shout: 
Behold the practical demonstration of the blessings of pro¬ 
tection ! 

If such results are attributable to high duties, then the 
people who enjoy the benefits of reduced prices may properly 
join in extolling the system of high protection ; but unfortu¬ 
nately for this pet argument of the representatives of greedy 
monopoly, it is confronted and exploded by the stern fact 
that every protected article that can be named that has been 
reduced in price, in the American market, during the period 
of high protection, has been fully as much reduced in price in 
‘^Free-trade England.” If prices fell alike in free-trade and 
in protection countries, it is plain that the tariff was not the 
cause of the reduction; and some other explanation must be 
found. The true explanation, in nearly every instance, is to 
be found in improved machinery or new methods of produc¬ 
tion, or something that reduces the cost of production. Hun¬ 
dreds of illustrations may be given of the effects of improved 
machinery in reducing prices and at the same time increasing 
the wages of labor. Take, for example, one that came to the 
attention of the author during the recent trial of a case ; and 
it is by no means an extraordinary example. Prior to 1875, 
chain was made by heating each link blank in a blacksmith’s 
fire to the welding degree, and welding it with hammer and 
anvil. In 1875 welding dies were invented and came into use, 
followed the next year by a furnace device for heating links as 
rapidly as they could be welded with the dies. Under the 
18 


274 


SUPERIORITY OF 


improved method 500 pounds of | inch chain is an ordinary 
day’s work, and the wages is 75 cents per 100 pounds, or $3.75 
per day, which includes 75 cents for the boy who heats the 
link blanks. Under the old method 150 pounds was a good 
day’s work, and the wages was $1.25 per 100 pounds, or $1.87J 
per day. So that, by virtue of the improved devices, the 
laborer gets higher wages and the employer is enabled to pro¬ 
duce more chain, of better quality, which he can afford to 
sell at lower prices, without in the least curtailing his own 
profits. Dozens of examples of even far more striking char¬ 
acter may be given; and it is manifest that the tariff has 
nothing whatever to do with advancing the wages or reducing 
the price of the product in such cases. 

Many interesting and instructive details have been presented 
in the course of congressional debates on tariff measures, 
showing how machinery has taken the place of manual labor 
in our manufacturing industries; and how it operates at the 
same time to advance the wages of labor and to reduce the 
cost of production. The following extract is taken from the 
speech of Hon. William L. Wilson, of West Virginia, on the 
Mills bill, to wit: 

*^In the first annual report of the Bureau of Labor we have 
striking illustrations of this displacement of labor by ma¬ 
chinery. In a manufactory of agricultural implements, 600 
hands do the work that formerly required 2,145. In the 
manufacture of boots and shoes one hand does the work of 
five, and will produce enough shoes in a year to supply a 
thousand men. In the manufacture of carpets, one hand, with 
the improvements in machinery, does the work that required 
from ten to twenty; in spinning, the work of from seventy- 
five to one hundred. In the manufacture of some kinds of 
hats, one man is equal to nine. In a large establishment in 
JSTew Hampshire, improved machinery, even in the past ten 
years, has dispensed with fifty per cent, of human labor in the 
making of cotton goods. By the use of improvements and 
inventions in the past ten or fifteen years, in hammers used 
in the manufacture of steel, there has been a displacement of 
employes in the proportion of nearly 10 to 1. In the manu- 


DE2I0CRATIO ADMINISTRATION. 


275 


factiire of paper, a new machine for drying and cutting, run 
by four men and six women, will do the work of one hundred 
persons. In the manufacture of wall-paper the displacement 
has been 100 to 1. Equally striking facts as to the woolen 
and other industries might be given, but I will call special 
attention to this general statement. The mechanical indus¬ 
tries of the United States, carried on by steam and water, 
represent the labor of 21,000,000 men. On our railroads to¬ 
day 250,000 men do the woik which, when Mr. Clay spoke, 
would have required 13,500,000 men and 54,000,000 horses. 

To do tlie work now done by power and power machinery 
in our mechanical industries and upon our railroads would 
require men representing a population of 172,500,000 in ad¬ 
dition to the present population of 55,000,000. 

“And it is just in the protected industries of the country, 
employing altogether, according to the estimate of the late 
Secretary Manning, not more than five per cent, of the labor 
of the country, that the chief displacement of human labor 
by machinery has occurred.” 

In support of their argument that high duties operate to 
reduce the cost of protected articles to the consumer, the 
champions of high protection have a pet illustration in the 
matter of steel rails. Hon. J. 0. Burrows, of Michigan, in 
his speech against the Mills Bill, presented it as follows, to wit: 

^^In 1867 steel rails were selling in the American market 
for $166 a ton in currency, or $138 in gold ; in 1870 the price 
had fallen to $106.75, when the duty of $28 was imposed . . . 
Under the stimulating effect of this protection the product of 
our steel-rail mills rose from 2,277 tons in 1867 to 2,101,904 
tons in 1887,giving investment to millions of capital and em¬ 
ployment to thousands of laborers, while the price went down 
from $166 a ton in 1867 to $31.50 in March, 1888.” 

To the citizen who is satisfied with just such facts as his 
party bosses allow him to know, this statement looks immense ; 
but when he learns the further fact that in “Free Trade 
England” the price of steel rails went down fully as rapidly 
and as low, he will natural look in some other direction 
than the tariff for the cause. How could the tariff, by any 


276 


SUPERIORITY OF 


possibility, effect such tremendous reduction in prices ? The 
answer given by all the champions of high protection, and the 
only answer they attempt to give, is that protection draws 
capital and industry into the protected business to such ex¬ 
tent that competition arises amongst the home producers, 
and prices go down on account of such competition. It is the 
old theory of Hamilton, upon which his followers are unable 
to improve, and which he expressed, as Mr. Burrows quotes 
his language, in this way : 

^^The internal competition which takes place soon does 
away with everything like monopoly, and reduces the price of 
the article to the minimum of a reasonable profit on the 
capital emplo 3 ^ed. This accords with the reason of the thing 
and with experience.’’ 

Mr. Hamilton did not foresee the creation of the combina¬ 
tions existing in our day to stifle competition or he could 
never have written such doctrine, which his followers embrace 
fondly, although it is in conflict with the every-day exj)erience 
of our time. The pretense of competition in the American steel 
industry, and the reduction of prices therebj^ to ^^the mini¬ 
mum of a reasonable profit,” was annihilated by Hon. William 
L. Scott, of Pennsylvania, in his able speech favoring the 
Mills Bill. He shows that the representatives of our home 
steel industries, instead of engaging in lively competition with 
each other, have associated themselves together to prevent 
competition, and regulate the prices at which each shall sell 
and the quantity each shall produce. He shows the cost of 
production of a ton of steel rails at Braddock (near Pitts¬ 
burgh), taking his figures from the board of arbitration 
selected by the Knights of Labor and the Edgar Thompson 
Steel Works to fix the rates of wages for the year 1887. The 
cost per ton was $26.79, of which $4.09 was wages to the em¬ 
ployes of the concern, and $22.70 material and waste. The 
selling price for the same year, fixed by the association, was 
37.50. The duty under existing law is $17 per ton. The 
difference in cost of materials and labor between England and 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


277 


Pittsburgli does not exceed $7.50 per ton of steel rails ; so that 
a railroad company, desiring to break away from homo mo¬ 
nopoly prices and buy steel rails abroad, in 1877, would have 
had to pay the price of steel rails in the English market, to¬ 
gether with about $2 per ton freight, and a duty of $17 per 
ton, or $9.50 per ton, besides freight, in excess of the dif¬ 
ference in cost of production between England and America. 
The Mills Bill reduces the duty on steel rails from $17 to $11 
per ton. 

To show the utter want of competition in the steel-rail in¬ 
dustry, Mr. McMillan read an article from the Bulletin of 
the American Iron and Steel Association’’ containing the 
following : 

The market is extremely dull both East and West. The 
board of control has decided upon an increase in the allot¬ 
ment of 200,000 tons, which wilPrelieve the pressure on some 
of the Eastern mills.” 

He made the following comment: 

would seem from this very business-like statement that 
the ‘board of control’ is not misnamed, and absolutely con¬ 
trols the output of steel rails in this country. It determines 
-when it shall be increased and when restricted, being careful 
only to maintain prices up to the cost of foreign goods with 
the duty added.” 

Hon. W. C. P. Breckinridge made the following clear state¬ 
ment on this subject: 

“ It is undoubtedly true that under the operation of the 
stimulus of high protective duties competition takes place. 
.... Temporarily this competition produces decrease of the 
price asked of the consumer, and causes an over-production 
of the article. Then comes, inevitably, disaster. The weak 
go to the wall. . . . Then comes combination. The strong who 
have survived the storm of disaster see that they can take ad¬ 
vantage of these duties much more profitably by a union 
amongst themselves, and fleecing their customers, rather than 
fighting each other, and trusts, pools and organizations are 
formed, by means of which prices are advanced and produc- 


278 


SUPERIORITY OF 


tion diminished. I do not mean to say that a tariff either 
necessurily produces trusts, or that it alone produces them. 
These organizations can be formed whenever combination of 
producers can prevent competition, but these trusts can be 
destroyed, whenever they are formed under the operation of 
protective duties, by lowering the duty so as to afford oppor¬ 
tunity for foreign competition, whereby the consumer of the 
necessary article may have a chance to purchase it from some 
one else than the trust.” 

This presents a true picture of excessive protection, as the 
American people have experienced it during the last quarter 
of a century. The steps rarely vary. They are : 

1. The drawing of capital and enterprise from the natural 
channels, created by the law of demand and supply, into the 
industries artificially stimulated by excessive duties. 

2. Over-production in the industries thus stimulated to 

excess. ^ 

3. Bankruptcy of the weak concerns engaged in such in¬ 
dustries. 

4. Generally an increase of duties procured under the pre¬ 
tense that foreign competition ruined the business. 

5. Combination amongst the strong concerns that had 
means to tide over the depression, and monopoly of the mar¬ 
ket for their common benefit, at such prices as their ‘‘ board 
of control,” or their delegate conventions, may choose to fix. 

Excessive protection eventually stifles the competition it 
temporarily creates, and prices are arbitrarily and artificially 
fixed regardless of the natural law of demand and supply. 
Nearly every daily newspaper contains an account of a meet¬ 
ing of the representatives of some sort of excessively pro¬ 
tected industry, to fix prices, regulate the output, and throttle 
competition. They gain full control of the trade, to exclu¬ 
sion of competitors, and that constitutes the very essence of 
monopoly. 

Tariff reformers demand a reduction of excessive duties, 
not for the benefit of the English producers, but for the bene¬ 
fit of the American millions who have grown weary of exces- 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


279 


sive prices arbitrarily fixed by the committees of home pro¬ 
ducers who monopolize the trade.- 

5. The opponents of the Mills Bill confidently argue that 
high tariff periods have been the most prosperous periods of 
our country’s history, and that reductions in the duties have 
been followed by business depression, low wages, ruin of in¬ 
dustries and financial panics. 

This argument will not bear the test of analysis. Our peo¬ 
ple have enjoyed periods of great and substantial prosperity 
under low tariffs, and they have suffered from financial pan¬ 
ics, and been compelled to endure long periods of business 
depression and disaster under high tariffs ; so that it becomes 
the part of wisdom to carefully consider to what extent, and 
in what way, the tariff laws have been instrumental in pro¬ 
moting or retarding the prosperity of the country. 

It is undoubtedly true that high duties act as a temporary 
stimulus to the protected industries, and tend to draw capital 
and enterprise from the natural channels of trade and business 
into the artificially stimulated industries; but it is equally 
true that excessive stimulation is invariably followed by re¬ 
action and depression, whether such stimulation is brought 
about by tariff laws or other causes. Eeference has already 
been made to Mr. Blaine’s account of the effect of the tariff 
of 1816, which, he says, was followed by severe depression; 
but why ? Was it because it tended towards free trade, or 
because the duties were too low for either revenue or protec¬ 
tion ? Not at all. Mr. Blaine gives the true explanation 
when he says it was not because the duties were not in them¬ 
selves sufficiently high, but from the fact that it followed the 
war tariff, and the change was so great as to produce not only 
reaction but a revolution in the financial condition of the 
country.” There had been a speedy and unhealthy growth of 
industries under the stimulus of the high war tariff of 1812 
which was not real prosperity ; and such always has been, and 
always will be, the result of over-stimulation of any industry. 
There is a period of apparent prosperity, followed by a period 


280 


SUPERIORITY OF 


of depression ; and this happens from the operation of natural 
laws, which no artificial enactments of human legislation can 
long override. The tariff legislation of 1861 and subsequent 
years gave an unnatural and unhealthy stimulus to protected 
industries, which had the outward appearance of unprece¬ 
dented prosperity until the bubble burst in the autumn of 
1873 ; and then followed six years of reaction, re-adjustment, 
uncertainty and a greater amount of distress and bankruptcy 
than was ever known in the country. During this period of 
inflation, as well as the succeeding period of depression and 
wide-spread calamity, the tariff rates were at the highest 
notch. After the longest and by far the most calamitous 
period of depression ever experienced by the American people, 
business began to revive in the summer and autumn of 1879 ; 
not by reason of any change in the tariff laws, for none was 
made, but because weak concerns had become weeded out of 
the protected industries by the remorseless hand of bank-t 
ruptcy, and those who were strong enough to weather the 
storm combined amongst themselves to regulate the markets, 
of which they have since enjoyed a practical monopoly. The 
rich few have come out richer, and the poor millions have 
come out poorer, with their ranks extended by the addition 
of thousands of formerly well-to-do people, who were beguiled 
by the stimulation of the tariff to risk their inadequate capital 
in inflated industries. 

The distinctly visible effects of the practical operation of 
excessive tariff* rates, during an experience of quarter of a cen¬ 
tury, are most marked in the increase of three classes of the 
American people, viz. : 1st, a small class of rich monopolists 
growing richer every year; 2d, a larger class of once fairly 
prosperous business men, who were wrecked in the fatal col¬ 
lapse of the artificially stimulated industries into which they 
had been seduced by high duties, and who are now struggling 
in humiliation to make an honest living, or are living upon 
property saved from the wreck by the timely placing of it 
under cover of their wives, or some convenient trustees ; and 


DEMOCRATIC ADIIINISTRATION. 


281 


3d, a very large class of laborers, subject to uncertainty of 
employment, forced into a distinctive grade of social life far 
removed from the fellowship of their rich employers, and pre¬ 
served from absolute servility only by their self-asserted man¬ 
hood maintained by careful organization. These three classes 
have been growing larger and larger every year under the arti¬ 
ficial policy of excessive protection, and they are gradually 
absorbing the small traders, small manufacturers and small 
farmers. 

A tremendous boast has been made by excessive protection¬ 
ists that during the high tariff period the aggregate wealth of 
the country increased from fourteen billions in 1860 to forty- 
four billions in 1880, and they exclaim : Here is proof positive 
that a high tariff is a great public benefit! This boast, like 
all the claims of ultra-protectionists, is founded on a partial 
statement of facts, and a suppression of other facts necessary 
to a correct understanding of the matter. In the first place, 
this boasted increase of wealth between 1860 and 1880 has 
been exaggerated, as is apparent when we consider that the 
census of 1860 and the valuations then made were compiled 
at a time of extreme depression in values just preceding the 
war, whilst the census and valuations of 1880 were compiled 
at a time of extreme infiation of values, being pre-eminently 
the period of watered stocks. Besides, there was a thousand¬ 
fold more mortgaged property, including homes, farms and 
corporate property, in 1880 than in 1860 ; and, in calculating 
the wealth of the country in 1880, this property is practically 
counted twice, to a large extent: that is, the mortgaged prop¬ 
erty is rated at its unencumbered value, and the amount of 
the mortgage is counted as so much wealth of the mortgagee, 
in the form of loaned money. But even if the increase was 
fairly up to the amount claimed, it would furnish no evidence 
in favor of a high tariff or superior Republican management, 
and for this plain reason : the percentage of increase in wealth, 
during each of the three twenty-years’ periods between 1800 
and 1860, was greater than during the twenty-years’ period 


282 


SUPERIORITY OF 


from 1860 to 1880. The fact, then, is that, notwithstanding 
all the advantages, all the discoveries, all the newly invented 
machinery and new processes, and all the new productions 
(such, for example, as petroleum), enjoyed during the period 
from 1860 to 1880 the percentage of increase of wealth during 
that period is below the percentage of increase during the 
sixty years of practically uninterrupted Democratic administra¬ 
tion and of moderate import duties. 

It is refreshing to turn from the contemplation of the last 
quarter of a century of excessive tariff rates, with its strikes, 
lockouts, armies of tramps, monopolies, bankruptcies, infla¬ 
tions followed by ruinous depressions, and its vexatious 
uncertainties, and to consider the prosperous and happy 
condition of the country under the operation of the moderate 
tariff Act of 1846. The prosperity of that period is well re¬ 
membered by the elder and middle-aged people now living; 
it is admitted by Mr. Blaine; and it is stated with logical 
clearness and in forcible detail by Mr. Carlisle in his great 
speech on the Mills Bill, on May 19th, 1888. He said : 

‘^The highest rates of duty imposed by the tariff Act of 
1846 upon any class of woolen goods, cotton fabrics, manu¬ 
factures of leather and of hardware, was 30 per cent, ad valo¬ 
rem, and upon most kinds of cotton goods it was only 25 per 
cent.^ These were the industries in which blew England was 
most' largely engaged, and her Eepresentatives here, except 
those from the State of Maine, who were divided upon the 
question, protested against the passage of that Act, as they 
now protest against the passage of the pending bill, upon 
the ground that it would paralyze and ruin these great inter¬ 
ests. The Eepresentatives from Massachusetts, Ehode Island, 
Connecticut, Hew Hampshire and Vermont voted unani¬ 
mously against the bill, with the exception of Mr. Collamer, 
of Vermont, who did not vote at all. But it passed, never¬ 
theless, and became a law; and now, Mr. Chairman, let us 
see what its effect was upon the most important industries of 
these great manufacturing States, and what the subsequent 
action of their Eepresentatives was, after an experience of 
eleven years under these moderate rates of duty. 

'"We have no authentic statistics showing the progress 


DEMOCRATIC ADIIINISTRATION, 


283 


made by manufacturing industries between 1846 and 1857 as 
a separate and distinct period of time, but it may be fairly 
assumed that the full force and effect of the new rates of 
duty were realized at least as early as the census year 1849, 
and we have the census returns of 1850 and 1860, the latter 
based upon the productions of the year 1859, to which I beg 
leave to invite the attention of gentlemen from New England 
and other gentlemen who believe that low tariffs destroy manu¬ 
factures and pauperize labor. During the period mentioned 
the value of our woolen manufactures increased more than 
32 per cent., the number of hands employed increased 18^ 
per cent., but the total amount of wages paid increased nearly 
37 per cent., showing that the percentage of increase in the 
amount of wages paid was twice as great as the percentage of 
increase in the number of hands employed. Taking all the 
New England States together, the increase in the value of the 
product in this industry was 62 per cent. The increase in 
Massachusetts was 54 per cent.; in Ehode Island, 176 per 
cent.; in Vermont, 61i per cent., and in Maine, 83| per cent. 
In the manufacture of hosiery the progress during the ten 
vears under consideration was almost marvelous. In the 
lEastern States the increase in the value of the product was 
481 per cent. It was 523 per cent, in Connecticut, 377 per 
cent, in New Hampshire, and 373 per cent, in Massachusetts. 

What was the effect upon the manufacture of cotton 
fabrics in New England and in the whole country ? Why, 
sir, the value of the production in the United States in¬ 
creased 77 per cent., the number of hands employed increased 
28^ per cent., and the total amount of wages paid increased 
39 per cent. In New England the increase in the value of 
the product was over 81 per cent., in the number of hands 
employed 28 per cent., and in the amount of wages paid 36 
per cent. Massachusetts increased her product 77 per cent.. 
New Hampshire 55 per cent., Rhode Island over 87 per cent., 
Connecticut 116 percent., Maine 137 per cent., and Vermont 
27i per cent. 

In the six New England States the increase in the value 
of the product in the manufacture of boots and shoes was 83 
per cent.; in Massachusetts the increase was 92 per cent., in 
Connecticut 10 per cent., in Maine 99 per cent., and in 
Rhode Island 337 per cent. The production in New England 
alone in 1860 was greater than the aggregate production of 
all the States of the Union in 1850. In the manufacture of 


284 


SUPERIORITY OF 


hardware New England increased the value of her product 
100 joer cent., and in this industry also her product in 1860 
was greater than the product of all the States in 1850. 

Instead of paralyzing the industries and pauperizing 
labor in New England, or any other part of the country for 
that matter, the tariff Act of 1846 infused new life and vigor 
into our languishing manufactures and secured more constant 
employment and higher wages to our laboring people ; and 
the consequence was that even the strong prejudices of New 
England were removed by actual experience, and in 1857 ev¬ 
ery Representative from that part of the country who voted 
at all voted for a bill making an almost uniform reduction of 
20 per cent, from the rates imposed by the Act of 1846 and 
placing many additional articles on the free list. . . . 

Two-thirds of the men chosen by the people of New 
England to represent their interests in congress declared by 
this vote that a further reduction would be beneficial to their 
industries, and thus the tariff Act of 1857, which we have so 
often heard denounced on the other side of the House, be¬ 
came the law of the land by the votes of Republican and New 
England Representatives. 

‘‘ These representatives of the greatest manufacturing sec¬ 
tion of country had seen their industries grow and prosper as 
they had never grown and prospered before ; they had seen 
capital realizing adequate returns upon its investment ; they 
had seen the number of laborers employed constantly increas¬ 
ing and the rates of wages constantly rising, and they had 
seen at the same time the agricultural and commercial in¬ 
terests of the people in all parts of the country fiourishing to 
an extent wdiich the wnldest enthusiast had scarcely dreamed of 
before. All these things they had seen, Mr. Chairman ; but 
there are other things with which w^e have grown perfectly 
famliar in these times of high tariff and class legislation 
loMch they did not see. They did not see great monopolies 
and trusts created to limit the supply and control the prices 
of the necessaries of life. They did not see enormous for¬ 
tunes accumulated in a few years by corporations and indi¬ 
viduals engaged in favored industries, while the great mass of 
the people were struggling hard to live comfortably and pay 
their taxes ; nor did they see at any time during that period, 
as we have seen, thousands of honest laborers parading the 
streets of our cities clamoring for work, or assembling around 
our mines and factories with a hired police to watch them.” 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


285 


A correspondent of tlie Pittsbiirgli Post recently showed 
the development of the iron industries in and about Pitts¬ 
burgh during the operation of the tariff of 1846, specifying 
many establishments that were founded or enlarged during 
that period. There was a natural and healthy growth of 
American industries under the operation of that tariff, and 
a highly advantageous condition of substantial prosperity 
throughout the country. The flock-masters never received 
better prices for their wool, and the products of the farm 
found satisfactory markets; and this brings us to another 
unfounded objection to the Mills Bill, viz.: 

6. That it will tend to destroy the home market of the 
farmer. Mr. McKinley, in his captivating but singularly fal¬ 
lacious and unfair argument, dwelt at great length upon the 
value of our home market to the farming population, and 
showed up the extent of the market afforded by the manu¬ 
facturers of New England for the agricultural products of 
the West and the South during the last quarter of a cen¬ 
tury. In all this he made a great show of facts which are 
not disputed ; but he failed to show the extent of the same 
market prior to the era of high tariffs, or how the passage 
of the Mills Bill would injure this New England market. 
Of course, he assumes that the proposed reduction of duties 
would embarrass and, in some instances, destroy the New 
England industries, and in that way destroy or seriously 
injure the home market. The condition of New England, 
as shown by Mr. Carlisle, under the low tariff of 1846, 
is a complete answer to the pretense that a reduction of 
existing duties, to the extent proposed, would seriously im¬ 
pair the manufacturing industries of New England, or any 
other part of the country. The reductions are so slight as to 
leave a duty on every dutiable article in excess of the differ¬ 
ence in cost of production in this country and in cheap labor 
countries, thereby preserving our industries from unfair com¬ 
petition ; and it is quite plain that manufacturers cannot be 
injured by putting raw materials on the free list. How, 


286 


SUPERIORITY OF 


then, is it possible for the Mills Bill to injure the home mar¬ 
ket of the farmer by injuring the manufacturers who create 
the home market ? 

7. It is urged in objection to the Mills Bill that it will re¬ 
sult in reduction of the wages of labor. The answer to this 
unfounded objection has already been incidentally referred to, 
but it will be fully considered in a subsequent chapter, Avhich 
treats of The Attitude of Parties towards the Laboring 
Classes.” 

The objections to the Mills Bill, so far as they are deserving 
of the name of arguments, have now been stated, together 
with the answers thereto. In presenting these objections 
some of the Kepublican debaters, whose speeches are intended 
for distribution as campaign documents, have indulged in 
statements and insinuations designed to withdraw public at¬ 
tention from the real question in dispute. The question is : 
Shall the revenue be reduced to the requirements of economi¬ 
cal government by reducing excessive duties on imports, and 
still preserving sufficient duties to cover the difference in cost 
of production in this country and abroad ? That is the simple 
question, and any argument not pertinent to that question 
is foreign to the tariff reform issue now before the people. 

Such being the issue, jt is amazing that unbridled partisan¬ 
ship should lead a man of Mr. McKinley’s reputation to in¬ 
dulge in such statements as the following : 

‘‘Foreign productions not competing with home produc¬ 
tions are the proper subjects of taxation under a revenue 
tariff, and, in case these do not furnish the requisite revenue, 
a low duty is put upon the foreign product competing with 
the domestic one—low enough to encourage and stimulate im¬ 
portations, and low enough to break down eventually domes¬ 
tic competition. . . . The moment it is made clear that a tax 
is a benefit to home producers the free-trade dogma condemns 
it. The test is^ simple and easy of application. Free-trade 
or a revenue tariff does not allow any import duties being im¬ 
posed on such articles as are likewise produced at home.” 

It is difficult to deal temperately with such gross perversion 


BEMOGRATIG ADMINISTRATION. 


287 


of the facts. The theory stated in this extract is as unlike 
the tariff reform policy of the Democratic party as day is 
unlike night. Tbe reform of the existing tariff to which the 
party is pledged in its platform, and which President Cleve¬ 
land recommended in his message, and which is embodied 
substantially in the Mills Bill, is utterly unlike the man of 
straw set up in the above extract from Mr. McKinley’s speech. 
It consists in reform, by reducing the revenue to the require¬ 
ments of the government; not, as Mr. McKinley says, by 
levying duties on ‘^foreign productions not competing with 
home productions,” but the very reverse; that is to say, in 
the language of the platform, ‘^the necessary reduction in 
taxation can and must be effected . . . without imposing 
lower rates of duty than will be ample to cover any increased 
cost of production vrhich may exist in consequence of the 
higher rate of wages prevailing in this country.” Such is the 
Democratic policy of tariff revision, such is the doctrine of 
President Cleveland’s message, and such are the provisions of 
the Mills Bill, with respect to every article not put on the free 
list. It is a policy fair and just to all classes, and must com¬ 
mend itself to the good judgment of every citizen who is not 
kept in ignorance, or warped by self-interest, or blinded by 
partisanship. 

It is precisely such perversions of the facts as are contained 
in the foregoing extract from Mr. McKinley’s speech that 
leads British journalists to publish the foolish articles which 
are reproduced by the Republican ultra-protection newspapers 
of this country, with double-leaded comments upon the favor 
and hopes with which British manufacturers look forward to 
the ultimate adoption of the Mills Bill. It is a repetition of 
the acts of the Federalists in holding out false hopes to the 
British daring the embargo period, as set forth in Mr. Jeffer¬ 
son’s letter to Dr. Leib, found herein at page 70. American 
voters are generally too well informed to be affected by British 
comments upon proposed legislation of the congress of the 
United States. 


388 


SUPERIORITY OF 


Another example of gross unfairness is found in the speech 
of Mr. Burrows, where, after quoting from President Polk’s 
message of 1846, to show that the country was then prosper¬ 
ous, he proceeds to say : 

But this brief period of prosperity was quickly followed 
by the revenue tariff of 1846 and 1857, which brought to the 
country another era of industrial depression, culminating in 
the panic of 1857, the disastrous consequences of which are 
still within the memory of living men. IJniversal bankruptcy 
overtook the people, and the government, with an empty 
treasury was forced, in times of peace, to borrow money at a 
discount of from twelve to thirty per cent.” 

Mr. Carlisle, after showing the wholesome operation of the 
tariff of 1846, in the portion of his speech already quoted, 
further answered the above reckless statement of Mr. Burrows 
as follows: 

I hold in my hand a volume issued from the Treasury De¬ 
partment in 1881, while Mr. Windom was Secretary, giving the 
history of all the loans negotiated by the government from the 
time of its organization to the date of its publication ; and this 
account, taken from the official records, shows that, from the 
time of the passage of the tariff act of 1846 down to the last 
few days of Mr. Buchanan’s administration, when civil war 
was imminent, not a bond or treasury note, or government 
obligation in any form, was sold at less than par, while many 
of them, having but a short time to run and bearing but five 
per cent, interest, were sold at a very considerable premium 
in gold.” 

The llepublican debaters persistently attempted to ridicule 
the position of the President and some of the Democratic de¬ 
baters, that the cost of the protected articles to consumers is 
increased by exactly the amount of the duties levied thereon. 
They take the selling price of a particular article wdien the 
duty was low, and then point triumphantly to its low^r price 
after it had been subjected to high duties, and then they de¬ 
mand to be told, What becomes of the theory that the duty 
enhances the cost and becomes a tax on the consumer ?” The 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION, 


289 


fallacy lies in the assumption that the market price of such 
article abroad remains as high as it was when the high duty 
was laid, when, in fact, as hereinbefore shown, many articles, 
by reason of improved methods of production, sell at prices 
less than the duty, in foreign markets as well as at home ; and, 
of course, nobody contends that the prices of such articles to 
the consumer arc increased precisely to the extent of the duty. 
The fact remains, however, that the home producers of ex¬ 
cessively protected manufactures are enabled by combination 
to keep up prices to the very limit of the price abroad with 
duty and freight added; and it is the lesson of experience 
that prices are usually kept up by monopolists to the highest 
notch consistent with the preservation of the trade ; and, when 
that is done, it is correct to say that the price paid by the 
consumer is increased precisely to the extent of the duty, 
whether he buys the article at home or abroad. Whatever 
may be the exact measure of the increased burden to the con¬ 
sumer of excessively protected home productions, there is no 
esca 2 :)ing tlie fact that he is required to pay much higher 
prices than the same articles would cost him if lower duties 
permitted him to buy elsewhere than from the home monopo¬ 
lists of the market, who are enabled, by means of excessive 
duties, to keep up prices beyond the margin of a fair profit. 

The tariff reformers maintain, with convincing force of 
reason, that it is not equal and exact justice” to the whole 
people to impose such rates of duties as require the toiling 
millions to pay increased prices for articles of necessary use, 
merely for the purpose of enhancing the profits of the rich 
few who are engaged in the production of such articles. The 
excessive duties exacted under the existing laws are an un¬ 
necessary and unjust burden upon the people who eventually 
pay them, and they are not needed by the government, nor 
necessary to protect home industries from unfair competition. 
Therefore, the tariff reformers reasonably conclude that the 
masses should be relieved from excessive prices, not by totally 
abolishing duties on imports, but by judiciously reducing such 
19 


290 


SUPERIORITY OF 


duties so far as to meet the requirements of economical gov¬ 
ernment and at the same time guard our home industries 
agaiust unfair competition with foreign manufactures that 
may be produced cheaper abroad. Such is the scope and pur¬ 
pose of the Mills Bill, and nothing more. It is not a blow at 
home industries, nor a device to benefit British producers, but 
a measure to relieve our own people from excessive prices for 
necessary commodities, and to prevent the accumulation of a 
corrupting, unnecessary and dangerous surplus in the public 
treasury, while, at the same time, it preserves sufficiently high 
duties to cover the differences in cost of production at home 
and abroad. It may be faulty in some of its details, and, to 
that extent, may itself require revision ; but its object is com¬ 
mendable, and it is a vast improvement upon the existing 
tariff laws. 

The tariff reformers further maintain that the law now in 
force practically excludes our agricultural products from 
foreign markets, because trade between people of different 
countries is based to a large extent upon exchange of commo¬ 
dities, and if our excessive duties exclude foreign productions 
from our country, they operate to close foreign markets to 
our own products, which would otherwise be taken in ex¬ 
change for foreign products purchased by our people. 

It is further maintained by the advocates of tariff reform 
that excessive duties not only over-stimulate the industries 
thereby directly affected, causing over-production and conse¬ 
quent depression therein, but such duties indirectly produce 
injury to other industries by drawing therefrom the capital 
and enterprise necessary for their successful operation. Cer¬ 
tain industries are thereby over-stimulated and eventually 
monopolized by the rich few, at the expense of other indus¬ 
tries of perhaps equal or greater utility, which languish for 
want of the nourishment which the natural laws of demand 
and supply would furnish, if excessive duties had not drawn 
capital and enterprise into the artificially stimulated indus¬ 
tries, and away from the languishing industries that would 


DEMOCRATIC ADMimSTRATION. 


291 


otherwise afford a reasonable and fair profit on the investment 
necessaiy for their operation. The effect is to concentrate 
capital in the excessively protected industries, to the detri¬ 
ment of other enterprises, and thereby limit the field for the 
employment of labor and capital, and destroy that diversity 
of occupation which is of immense advantage to the whole 
people. 

It is further argued in favor of the proposed reform that it 
is advantageous to home manufacturers to place raw materials 
on the free list, to the end that they may be placed on an 
equal footing with foreign competitors in their ability to se¬ 
cure such raw materials free from duties to the government, 
and thereby be enabled to successfully and fairly compete in 
the markets of the world with foreign manufacturers who get 
their raw material free of duty. 

They further contend that articles of necessity, which the 
poor require as well as the rich, should be relieved from 
duties so far as may be done without detriment to our home 
industries, and that the revenue required by the government 
should be collected from duties and taxes on articles of luxury 
such as are chiefly used by the rich and prosperous. They 
protest against the continuance of war duties upon the neces¬ 
sities of life in times of peace, especially since the war taxes 
which fell principally or altogether upon the rich have been 
removed, and when high duties on the necessities of life are 
not required for revenue. 


FREE WOOL. 

The Mills Bill places wool on the free list. Let us first 
consider the effect of free wool upon the wool-grower. It is 
necessary at the outset to present some facts rarely, if ever, 
mentioned in Republican speeches, or in ultra-protectionist 
journals. The doctrine has been diligently taught, and too 
often accepted, amongst wool-growers, that the rate of duties 
on foreign wools regulates the price which the American wool- 


292 


SUPERIORITY OF 


grower receives for his wool. This is a tremendous mistake, 
as will readily appear by an intelligent consideration of facts 
which the author has collected with great care. Prior to the 
Tariff Act of 1824 wool was on the free list. That Act im¬ 
posed a duty of 15 per cent, ad valorem on all imported wool 
costing ten cents a pound or less in the foreign market, and 
25 per cent, on all wool costing over ten cents a pound. 
That duty would amount to five cents a pound on wool cost¬ 
ing twenty cents. Many changes of the rates of duty have 
been made by the various Acts of congress passed since that 
dime, all of which are stated herein, and the price of wool in 
the New York and Boston markets during the operation of 
each rate of duty is given for each year since 1826. The price 
received by the author’s brother, Thomas M. Patterson, on 
his farm in Cross Creek Township, Washington County, Pa., 
each year since 1851 is given; and also the London prices 
for the same grade of wool each year since 1865. The prices 
given apply to the grade of wool known in the trade as 

Double X,” being the grade largely grown in the older 
wool-growing States, particularly in Ohio, Pennsylvania and 
West Virginia. 

A comparison of the prices with the rate of duty prevailing 
at the time will conclusively show that the home prices are 
not regulated, or apparently affected, by the rate of duty, 
either alone or in connection with the foreign prices. 

The Act of June 10th, 1826, imposed a duty of 15 per cent, 
on wool not costing over ten cents per pound, and 30 per 
cent, on wool costing over ten cents. The average price in 
Boston and New York, during the operation of that law, 
was 56 c. in 1826 ; 40 c. in 1827; 45 c. in 1828 and 1829. 

The Act of January 2d, 1830, provided a duty of 4 c. per 
pound, and 45 per cent, ad valorem in addition ; which was 
increased to 4 c. and 50 per cent, ad valorem, by the Act of 
June 30, 1830. The New York and Boston price, in 1830, 
was 55 c.; and 71 c. in 1831. 

The Act of July 14th, 1832, provided a duty of 4 c. per 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


293 


pound, and 40 per cent., ad yalorem, on wool costing over 8 c. 
per pound, while wool not costing over 8 c. was admitted free 
of duty. During the operation of that act the New York 
and Boston prices were as follows, to wit: 56 c. in 1832 ; 63 c. 
in 1833 ; 64 c. in 1834 and 1835 ; 67 c. in 1836 ; 63 c. in 1837; 
50 c. in 1838; 57 c. in 1839 ; 47 c. in 1840 ; 50 c. in 1841. 

The Act of August 30th, 1842, provided a duty of 5 per 
cent., ad valorem, on wool not costing over 7 c. per pound, 
and 3 c. per pound and 30 per cent, ad valorem, on wool cost¬ 
ing over 7 c. per pound. The New York and Boston prices 
in 1842 were 43 c.; 44 c. in 1844 ; 42 c. in 1845 ; 38 p. in 1846. 

The Act of December 5th, 1846, provided a duty of 30 per 
cent., ad valorem, on imported wool. Under the operation 
of that act the New York and Boston prices were as follows, 
to wit: 47 c. in 1847 ; 40 c. in 1848 ; 39 c. in 1849 ; 45 c. in 

1850 ; 47 c. in 1851 ; 45 c. in 1852 ; 59 c. in 1853 ; 49 c. in 

1854. The prices received by T. M. Patterson, in Washington 
County, Pa., were 55 c. in 1851; 47J c. in 1852 ; 60 c. in 1853 ; 
40 c. in 1854, his clip ranging from 100 to 140 fleeces. 

The Act of March 28th, 1855, continued the 30 per cent, 
duty on all imported wool, except the product of British North 
American Provinces, which was admitted free. The New 
York and Boston price in 1855 was 46 c.; in 1856 it was 55 c. 

T. M. Patterson received 45 c. in 1855 and 40 c. in 1856 ; 

clip 150 fleeces. 

The Act of July 1st, 1857, provided a duty of 24 per cent., 
ad valorem, on wool costing over 20 c. per pound, and ad¬ 
mitted all other foreign wool free. The New York and Bos¬ 
ton prices were 53 c. in 1857 ; 45 c. in 1858 ; 59 c. in 1859 ; 
54 c. in 1860. T. M. Patterson received 45 c. in 1857 and 
1858 ; 50 c. in 1859 ; 53 c. in 1860 ; his clip ranging from 110 
to 140 fleeces. 

The Act of April 3d, 1861, provided a duty of 5 per cent., 
ad valorem, on wool costing not over 18 c., and 3 c. per pound 
additional oh wool costing over 8 c. and not over 24 c.; and 9 c. 
per pound on wool costing over 24 c. The New York and 


294 


SUPERIORITY OF 


Boston prices, reduced to gold standard, were 44 c. in 1861 ; 

47 c. in 1862 ; 52 c. in 1863. T. M. Patterson received 30 c. 
in 1861; 50 c. (equal to 43J- c. in gold) in 1862; 62J- c. 
(being 46J c. in gold) in 1863 ; his clip ranging from 100 to 
150 fleeces. 

The Act of July 1st, 1864, provided a duty of 3 c. per pound 
on wool costing not over 12 c.; duty of 6 c. per pound on wool 
costing over 12 c. and not over 24 c.; duty of 10 c. per pound 
on wool costing over 24 c. and not over 32 c., with an addition 
of 10 per cent., ad valorem ; costing over 32 c. a duty of 12 c. 
per pound, and 10 per cent., ad valorem. The New York 
and Boston prices, gold standard, were 45 c. in 1864 and 46 c. 
in 1865. T. M. Patterson received $1.00 in 1864 (equal to 
40 c. in gold), and 72 c. in 1865 (equal to 51 c. in gold); his 
clip being 300 fleeces in 1864 and 200 in 1865. In 1865 the 
price of wool of the same grade in the London market was 
24 c. until June, when it advanced to 25 c. in September, and 
then gradually ran up to 28 c. in December. 

The Act of March I7th,1866, struck the wool product of the 
British North American Provinces from the free list; and the 
Act of August 22, 1866, increased the duty on wools cost¬ 
ing over 12 c. and not over 24 c. to 7 c. per pound and 10 per 
cent., ad valorem, leaving the duty of the Act of 1864 on 
other grades. The New York and Boston price in 1866, gold 
standard, was 47 c. T. M. Patterson received 72 c. (equal to 

48 c. in gold), in 1866, for clip of 200 fleeces. The London 
price in 1866, up until March, was 30 c. when it ran down to 
26 c. in June, up to 27 c. in September, and down gradually 
to 25 c. in December. 

The cost of shipment from London to New York or Boston 
is about one cent per pound more than the cost of shipment 
from Ohio to the same points ; being a fraction less than two 
cents per pound. 

By the Act of March 2d, 1867, wools were classified : Class 
1, being clothing wools; class 2, combing wools ; class 3, car¬ 
pet and other similar wools. The duties fixed on wools of 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


295 


classes 1 and 2 was 10 c. per pound and 11 per cent., ad valo¬ 
rem, on wools costing 32 c. or less, and on wools costing over 

32 c. a duty of 12 c. per pound and 10 per cent., ad valorem. 
Class 3, costing 12 c. or less, a duty of 3 c. per pound ; costing 
over 12 c., a duty of 6 c. per pound. AYoolen rags, shoddy, 
mungo and waste, a duty of 12 c. per pound. At no time while 
that act was in force did the London price exceed 32 c., except 
in February, 1872, when it ran up rapidly to 33 c. and dropped 
suddenly below 32 c., so that all imported wools came in at the 
duties fixed on wools costing 32 c. or less. The New York and 
Boston prices, gold standard, during the operation of the 
high tariff act of 1867, were as follows, to wit: 46 c. in 1867 ; 
42 c. in 1868 ; 48 c. in 1869 ; 51 c. in 1870 ; 58 c. in 1871. T. 
M. Patterson received 53 c. (gold 38) in 1867 ; 46 c. (geld 32) 
in 1868 ; 45 c. (gold 33) in 1869 ; 45 c. (gold 39) in 1870 ; 50 c. 
(gold 45) in 1871. The London prices in 1867 and 1868, 
varied from 24 c. to 21 c.; in 1869, beginning at 23 c. in 
January, running down gradually to 18 c. in June, then up 
slowly to 19 c. in September, and remaining steadily at that 
point throughout the year ; in 1870 it fluctuated between 
21 c. and 17 c.; in 1871 it rose steadily from 19 c. to 31 c. 

The Act of June 6th, 1872, made a reduction of 10 per cent, 
on the rates of duties imposed by the Act of 1867. The New 
York and Boston prices, gold standard, during the operation 
of the Act of 1872, were as follows, to wit: 60 c. in 1872 ; 
50 c. in 1873 and 1874; 48 c. in 1875 ; 40 c. in 1876 ; 42 c. in 

1877 ; 37 c. in 1878; 35 c. in 1879 ; 48 c. in 1880 ; 42 c. in 
1881 ; 41 c. in 1882. T. M. Patterson received 50 c. (about 
44 gold) in 1872, 1873 and 1874; 42 c. (gold 37) in 1875 ; 

33 c. (gold 30) in 1876 ; 45 c. (gold 42) in 1877 ; 30 c. in 

1878 and 1879 ; 45 c. in 1880 ; 40 c. in 1881 and 1882. The 
London price reached 33 c. in February, 1872, then suddenly 
dropped to 28 c. in May, and fluctuated between 31 c. and 
27 c. throughout 1873 and 1874 ; in 1875 it varied from 29 c. 
to 25 c.; in 1876, 1877, 1878 and 1879, from 27 c. to 22 c.; 
from September, 1879, there was a gradual advance from 22 c. 


29G 


SUPERIORITY OF 


up to 30 c. in April, 1880, then a decline to 25 c. in June, and 
26 c. for balance of the year; in 1881, the price was never 
below 23 c. nor above 25 c. ; in 1882 the price was 26 c. steadily 
throughout the year. 

The Act of March 3d, 1883, struck off the ad valorem duties 
provided by the Act of 1867 on classes 1 and 2, and modified 
the rate so as to make the duty 10 c. per pound on wools cost¬ 
ing 30 c. or less, and 12 c. per pound on wools costing over 

30 c. Wool of class 3, costing 12 c. or less, duty 2^ c. per 
pound, and 5 c. on wool costing over 12 c. The New York 
and Boston prices, under the operation of that Act, which is 
the law now in force, have been as follows, to wit: 40 c. in 
1883 ; 36 c. in 1884; 32 c. in 1885 ; 33 c. in 1886 ; 31 c. in 
1887 ; T. M. Patterson received 35 c. in 1883 ; 30 c. in 1884; 

31 c. in 1885 ; 30 c. in 1886 ; 33 c. in 1887 ; his flock from 
1866 to 1887 ranged from 250 to 300. The London price in 
1883 was never above 25 c. nor below 23 c.; in 1884 it was 
24 c. and 25 c., until the latter part of the year it reached 
23 c.; in 1885 the decline continued until it reached 19 c. in 
September, and advanced to 20 c. in December ; in 1886 it 
ran down to 17 c. in April, and then rose steadily to 24 c. in 
September, the year closing at 22 c. ; in 1887 it was never 
above 23 c. nor below 22 c. ; and during the present year, up 
to August 1st, the London prices have been from 22 c. to 25 c. 

^ The foregoing statement of facts furnishes an interesting 
subject of study for the intelligent wool-grower. He will 
observe that during the whole high tariff period, from 1867 to 
1883, the price of wool exceeded 50 cents only during the years 
1870, 1871 and 1872, and that it was below 40 cents in 1878 
and 1879. During the operation of the low tariff of 1846 it 
was never below 40 c., except in 1849, and was 59 c. in 1853 ; 
while, under the 24 per cent., ad valorem, tariff of 1857, with 
wool costing 20 c., or less, free, the price was above 50 cents 
every year, except 1858, when it was 45 cents; during that 
time Canada wool was free. During that period, as shown by 
Mr. Carlisle in the portion of his speech herein quoted, the 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


297 


manufacturing industries were in a highly prosperous con¬ 
dition. 

A comparison of the foreign and home prices, in connection 
with the rates of duties, will show conclusively that the home 
price is not regulated by the London price, with duty and extra 
freight added. For example, take the year 1869, when the 
domestic price was 48 cents in gold. The London price in 
June of that year was 18 c. and it did not exceed 19 c. through¬ 
out the remainder of the year; so that, from the time of the 
year when the American clip was ready for market until the 
close of the year, 19 cents was the highest price in London. 
The home manufacturer could buy in London, throughout 
the entire wool season of that year, for 18 and 19 cents. The 
cost of shipment did not exceed 2 cents ; in fact, it was less. 
The duty was 10 cents per pound, and 11 per cent, on the cost 
price, which would be about 2 cents a pound on wool costing 
18 and 19 cents. Add-these items, 19 + 2 + 10 + 2, and the 
sum is 33 cents, which was the extreme cost to the American 
manufacturer of getting wool from abroad that year, and yet 
the home price was 48 cents, gold standard. If the home 
price had been regulated by the London market it would not 
have exceeded 33 cents. On the other hand, in 1887 the liome 
price was 31 cents ; the London price never above 23 nor 
below 22 ; the duty 10 cents per pound and cost of shipment 
not over 2 cents. Hence, foreign wool could not be delivered 
that year, duty paid, for less than 34 and 35 cents, being 3 
and 4 cents above the home price. The conclusion is irresist¬ 
ible that it was not the duty that gave the wool-grower 15 to 
17 cents above the cost, duty paid, of foreign wool in 1869, 
and 3 to 4 cents below the foreign price, duty added, in 1887. 
If foreign competition in wool was so dangerous as partisan 
alarmists would have the wool-growers believe, why was not 
the country flooded with 33 cent foreign wool in 1869 when 
the home price was 48 cents ? 

It is plain, beyond all question, that the price the wool- 
gi'ower receives for his clip is not regulated by the tariff, nor 


298 


SUPERIORITY OF 


by the tariff in connection with the price of foreign wool of 
the same grade. He sometimes receives better prices when 
the tariff is low than when it is high ; he sometimes receives 
much more than the foreign price, with duty added, and 
sometimes less. It is folly, therefore, for ultra-protectionists 
to teach, or for wool-growers to believe, the utterly false doc¬ 
trine that the home price of wool would be reduced ten cents 
a pound by placing it on the free list. It is not now on the 
free list; not a pound of Double X ’’ wool can be brought 
in, duty paid, at a cost of less than 34 cents ; and, yet, the 
home price to the Ohio farmer is 25 cents. The price is regu¬ 
lated by considerations which the duty does not affect, and 
which operate alike whether the duty is high or low, or abol¬ 
ished altogether. 

A great parade has been made of the decrease in the number 
of sheep in the older States since the reduction of duties 
made by the Act of March 3d, 1883 ; and this is presented as 
conclusive evidence of the necessity for a return to the duties 
of 1867, and of the disasters that will follow the placing of 
wool on the free list. The fact is that the wonderful de¬ 
crease in the number of sheep in the older States took place 
before the Act of 1883 was passed, and while the high tariff 
was in operation. Look at the facts and figures. In 1866, 
the number of sheep in the State of Xew York was 5,117,148; 
in 1882, only 1,732,332. In 1866, Pennsylvania had 3,230,440 
sheep; in 1882, only 1,785,481. In 1866, Ohio had 6,568,- 
052 ; in 1867, she had 7,159,177 ; in 1869, she had 6,300,000; 
in 1877, only 3,900,000 ; in 1878, only 3,783,000 ; in 1882, 
she had 4,951,511. The tariff could not have caused this 
remarkable fluctuation. In 1866, Michigan had 3,473,075 ; 
in 1882, only 2,320,752. In 1866, Indiana had 2,783,367 ; in 
1882, only 1,111,516. In 1866, Illinois had 2,446,081 ; in 
1882, only 1,026,702. In 1866, Iowa had 1,950,752 ; in 1882, 
only 482,681. During that period there was a falling off of 
nearly one-third in Texas, and nearly a three-fold increase 
in California, with a small increase in Wisconsin. 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


299 


During the latter part of the year 1884, disease entered the 
flocks and swept away thousands of sheep within two years. 
T. M. Patterson lost over one hundred by disease, and many 
of liis neighbors fared worse. Of his ninety-three lambs at 
weaning time, in 1884, only forty-eight lived to be two years 
old ; and of sixty lambs weaned in 1885, only six lived to be 
yearlings. The prevalence of disease was general, causing 
like disasters among flocks, reducing the number and value 
of sheep for upwards of two years, and leading many former 
wool-growers to turn their attention to other business. 

There has been a complete change in the breed of sheep 
within the period of the author’s recollection. Thirty to 
forty years ago five hundred Saxony sheep were kept on a 
farm of two hundred acres, the clip averaging less than three 
pounds to the fleece. The Saxony sheep were mixed with the 
Drench Merino breed, and then the Spanish were introduced, 
until the stock became larger, better for mutton, and the 
clip averages about eight pounds to the fleece ; but a flock of 
200 to 250 is full stock for a two hundred acre farm. 

Changes and growth of industries in the older States en¬ 
abled farmers to turn their lands to more profitable uses than 
sheep culture. All these considerations operated in reducing 
the number of sheep in these States, and the decrease occurred 
when the tariff was at the highest notch, as well as when it 
was reduced. 

It is a well known fact that the same sheep produces differ¬ 
ent qualities of wool in different localities. Remove a sheep 
from Western Pennsylvania or Ohio to Texas or California, 
and its fleece will deteriorate in value the first year after its 
removal. The wool grown in the older States, such as Ohio, 
is indispensable, and will always command a price based 
upon the demand for it, no matter how congress may legis¬ 
late. 

The Act of 1857 imposed the lowest duty ever placed on 
wool since it was made dutiable in 1824. It was 24 per cent, 
on wool costing over 20 cents, which would be about six cents 


300 


SUPERIORITY OF 


per pound on the present cost of wool in London. When 
that bill was under discussion in congress. Senator Wilson of 
Massachusetts, afterwards Vice-President of the United States, 
said : 

The manufacturers, Mr. Chairman, make no war upon 
the wool-growers. They assume that the reduction of the 
duty on wool, or repeal of the duty altogether, will infuse 
vigor into the drooping interest, stimulate home production, 
and diminish the importation of foreign woolen manufactures, 
and afford a steady and increasing demand for American 
wool. They believe this policy will be more beneficial to the 
wool-growers, to the agricultural interests, than the present 
policy. The manufacturers of woolen fabrics, many of them 
men of large experience and extensive knowledge, entertain 
these views, and they are sustained in these opinions by the 
experience of the great manufacturing nations of the Old 
World. 

' Since the reductions of duties on raw materials in Eng¬ 
land, since wool was admitted free, her woolen manufactures 
have so increased, so prospered, that the production of native 
wool increased more than 100 per cent. The experience of 
England, France, and Belgium demonstrates the wisdom of 
that policy which makes the raw material duty free. Let us 
profit by their example. . . . 

If our manufactures are to increase, to keep pace with the 
poj)Illation and the growing wants of our people ; if we are to 
have the control of the markets of our own country; if we 
are to meet with and compete with the manufacturers of Eng¬ 
land and other nations of western Europe in the markets of 
the. world, we must have our raw materials admitted duty free 
or at a mere nominal rate. . . . 

‘‘We of New England believe that wool, especially the cheap 
wools, manilla, hemp, flax, raw silk, lead, tin, brass, hides, 
linseed, and many other articles used in our manufactories can 
be admitted, duty free, or for a mere nominal duty, without 
injuring to any extent any considerable interest of the 
country. 

At the date of that speech England had been enjoying the 
benefit of free wool for little more than twelve years, and its 
woolen manufactures had increased and prospered to such ex¬ 
tent that the home v;ool-growers, who had been taught that 


BEMOGRATIG ADMINISTRATION. 


301 


free wool would ruin their business, had found the very re¬ 
verse to be the fact, and tlie home demand had been increased 
so that in less than thirteen years the English flocks had been 
doubled. Similar gratifying results were experienced in the 
United States under the low tariff of 1846 and the still lower 
tariff of 1857. The wool grown in the United States is only 
about half enough to produce the woolen manufactures now 
annually used by its inhabitants ; so that the wants of the 
American people require the importation of as much wool as 
they now grow, either in a raw state or in the form of woolen 
manufactures. If the raw wool actually needed should be ad¬ 
mitted free, our home manufacturers can meet foreign com¬ 
petitors on fair terms, and be able to supply the home market 
at lower prices than woolen manufactures can be brought in 
from abroad under the equalized duties provided by the Mills 
bill. The necessary result must be revival of the woolen in¬ 
dustries, some of which are languishing under the operation 
of existing laws, thus affording increased demand for labor 
and for the wool grown at home. 

Free wool cannot fail to be advantageous to the manufac¬ 
turers. Under existing laws their works must stand idle 
while the British supply nearly oue-half of the woolen manu¬ 
factures consumed in this country, because they get their raw 
materials free of duty, while their American rivals pay a duty 
of ten cents a pound. The woolen manufacturer can offer but 
one objection to free wool, and that is, that if wool is made free, 
the next step will be a demand by the Western and Southern 
people that woolen manufactures shall be admitted free of 
duty. That objection has no application to the Mills Bill, 
which retains ample duties on woolen goods to fairly protect 
home industries if they are relieved from the burdensome 
duties on rav/ wool. This objection to free wool, from the 
manufacturer’s standpoint, is based upon the dread of some of 
them that free wool would be the entering wedge to a gradual 
breaking away from the ^‘protective system,” as it is called. 
The same argument is used with respect to other industries, 


302 


SUPERIORITY OF 


and it goes to the extent of opposition to any reductions of 
the duties provided hy existing laics. It simply means that 
the law which both parties have condemned shall be preserved 
and made permanent, and that the excessive revenue shall be 
reduced by freeing whiskey from taxation, and expending the 
surplus in jobbery. There is an immense amount of loose and 
meaningless talk about the Protective System.’’ Every duty, 
high or low, is protective. As Senator Sherman said in 1867 : 
‘‘Every law imposing a duty on imported goods is necessarily 
a restraint on trade ; it imposes a burden on the purchase and 
sale of imported goods and tends to prevent their importation. 
The expression ‘a free-trade tariff’ involves an absurdity. 
Every duty on imported merchandise gives to the domestic 
manufacturer an advantage equal to the duty, and to that ex¬ 
tent every tariff is a protective tariff.” A change of the rate 
of duties, making them higher or lower to meet the changing 
wants of the government and needs of industry, is no blow at 
any system, except the abominable system of keeping up un¬ 
necessary war duties in times of peace, and favoring particular 
classes in consideration of party services and contributions to 
pajdy funds. What the Democratic party asks in the interest 
of the people at large is a reduction of excessive duties; to 
that end they present the Mills Bill, with a readiness to modify 
it in whatsoever details it may be found objectionable, or to 
cheerfully accept a better substitute prepared in the interest 
of the people at large and not for the sole benefit of favored 
classes. 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


303 


CHAPTER XX. 

THE ATTITUDE OF PARTIES TOWARDS THE LABORING CLASSES. 

It is impossible to disguise or deny the fact that, during the 
period of Republican administration, the American people 
became more and more divided into classes, similar to the class 
divisions and distinctions existing in monarchical countries. In 
England and other countries subject to monarchical govern¬ 
ment, there is an upper class, a middle class and a lower class, 
the latter including laborers for hire. During the period of 
Republican dominion similar classes were gradually forming in 
the United States ; and their formation resulted naturally and 
unavoidably from the Republican monarchical policy of class 
favoritism. Social and religious circles have been created, into 
which money is the only necessary passport, and from which 
all who do not possess money are frozen out. The laboring 
classes have been forced into a distinctive social grade far re¬ 
moved from the U 2 :)starts who have grown rich upon govern¬ 
ment favors, and who arrogantly assume to look down upon 
the classes whose labor made them rich. In the face of this 
manifest condition of American society, the leaders of the 
Republican party unhesitatingly claim that they have digni¬ 
fied labor and made it honorable. How so ? 

A number of years ago the author attended a Republican 
meeting in Allegheny City, Pa., that was addressed by a 
famous stump speaker from the State of Indiana. The Green- 
backers were making a lively campaign in Pennsylvania, and 
the orator had been brought in from his encounters with that 
party in Indiana. After criticising a speech of Mr. Hendricks 
and making a vigorous assault upon the Greenback party and 
its members, he rashly proceeded to detail the measures 


304 


SUPERIORITY OF 


adopted by the Eepublican party in the interest of labor, and 
specified the mechanics’ lien laws, the laws abolishing impris¬ 
onment for debt, the exemption laws and laws of similar 
character, every one of which had been on the statute books 
of Pennsylvania long before the Eepublican party was organ¬ 
ized, and every one of which had been enacted by representa¬ 
tives of the Democratic party. 

Their chief claim upon the labor vote is that they have dig¬ 
nified labor by abolishing African slavery, and that they have 
been the means of furnishing employment to labor at good 
prices by instituting and preserving the protective tariff system. 
In his speech on the Mills Bill, Mr. Burrows said : 

It is not pretended that a protective tariff, in and of itself, 
affects wages, but it does build up manufacturing industries, 
creates a demand for labor and, as a consequence, increases its 
compensation.” 

In other words, the primary object of high duties is not the 
benefit of labor, but the benefit of favored classes who are 
thereby enabled to employ laborers at better prices; the benefit 
to labor being incidental. This is the identical argument used 
in monarchical countries in favor of maintaining a class of 
lords, upon whom labor is servilely dependent, although it 
generally obtains steady employment. It will not do to accept 
without inquiry the proposition that labor is even incidentally 
benefited by high duties. Such duties stimulate particular 
industries, thereby drawing capital and labor from other chan¬ 
nels, resulting in change of employment rather than the cre¬ 
ation of additional avenues of employment; so that, while 
certain industries are stimulated, other industries, capable of 
affording even more advantageous employment to labor, are 
weakened or destroyed. The employment afforded to labor 
by the protected industries is unsatisfactory and uncertain ; 
because, when the excessively protected industries reach the 
point of over-production, as they generally do at least once 
every year, employment of labor is suddenly cut off by a shut 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION, 


305 


down of the works. If the concern that afforded temporary 
employment at fair wages escapes bankruptcy, the laborer does 
not escape the necessary shut down compelled by over-produc¬ 
tion ; and when the works eventually resume, the laborer 
must submit to a reduction of wages, or strike, the latter 
course being his only remedy in the event of a reduction of 
wages. That remedy may be neutralized by resort to the ap¬ 
plication of a law which the representatives of the Eepuhlican 
party generously enacted for the benefit of such favored em¬ 
ployers as refuse to recognize any rights on the part of the 
laboring classes. That party had provided high rates of 
duties for the exclusion of the products of ^‘pauper labor” 
made in foreign countries, but they had carefully avoided any 
provision for the exclusion of ‘^pauper labor” itself. On the 
contrary, the representatives of that party took prompt action 
in congress in making it lawful for their favorites to import 
laborers who had no means of their own to pay their passages 
to this country, and to secure themselves by contracts which 
placed the imported laborers completely under their control. 
An Act of congress, entitled ^‘An act to encourage immi¬ 
gration,” passed in 1864, when the Eepublicans had a 
large majority in both branches, provided as follows, to 
wit : 

Sec. 2. That all contracts that shall be made by emigrants 
to the United States in foreign countries, in conformity to 
regulations that may be established by the said commissioner, 
whereby emigrants shall pledge the wages of their labor for a 
term not exceeding twelve months, to repay the expenses of 
their emigration, shall be held to be valid in law, and may be 
enforced in the courts of the United States or of the several 
States and Territories; and such advances, if so stipulated in 
the contract, and the contract be recorded in the recorder’s 
office in the country where the emigrant shall settle, shall 
operate as a lien upon any land thereafter acquired by the 
emigrant, whether under the homestead law when the title is 
consummated, or on property otherwise acquired, until liqui¬ 
dated by the emigrant; but nothing herein contained shall be 
deemed to authorize any contract contravening the constitu- 
20 


306 


SUPERIORITY OF 


tion of the United States, or creating in any way the relation 
of slavery or servitude.” (U. S. Stats, at Large, vol. 15, page 
386.) 

This Act is the product of a party that boasts of the libera¬ 
tion of 4,000,000 black slaves, and it became a law under the 
administration of the author of the famous Proclamation of 
Emancipation. It continued to disgrace the statute book of 
the United States during the entire period when the Eepubli- 
can party had the President and full control of both branches 
of the congress. It was eventually repealed by an act originat¬ 
ing in a Democratic House of Eepresentatives. It was designed 
and employed for the purpose of enabling capitalists to safely 
advance the money required to bring in pauper labor” from 
abroad to take the places made vacant by American laborers 
who felt compelled, in justice to their families, to strike 
against the exactions of their greedy and arrogant employers. 
Foreign governments gladly availed themselves of the unnatu¬ 
ral American demand created by this law to get rid of their 
pauj)ers and criminals, and the United States was made the 
dumping ground for a wretched and debased population from 
which European nations were glad to be freed. A multitude 
of people, no better fitted than the Chinese to assimilate with 
our people, were imported by contract under this law, and 
employed in our manufactories and mines, to the detriment 
of American laborers. These miserable creatures sometimes 
crowded out, and were sometimes employed side by side with, 
laborers who were often superior to their employers in intelli¬ 
gence and in every quality that goes to make up a man worthy 
of respect. American laborers were subjected to this insult 
and tendency to degradation as the result of the legislation of 
a party that has the hardihood to pretend that it has dignified 
labor ! 

It will be found interesting to look a little further into the 
legislation of this party that claims to have done so much for 
the laboring classes. The first war measure to increase the 
revenue was an increase of the duties on imports, which had 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


807 


to be paid by the general mass of consumers. As it became 
necessary to prolong the war, and still further revenue was re¬ 
quired, internal taxes were levied on many things, such as 
home manufactures, incomes, receipts of railroad companies, 
insurance companies, express companies, bank capital, de¬ 
posits, cliecks, notes, deeds and the like. These were taxes 
on the rich for the most part, and they brought large sums 
into the public treasury. In 1866 the revenue derived from 
the tax on home manufactures was $127,000,000, although 
the tax was less than five per cent, on the value of the manu¬ 
factured products; the revenue during the same year from 
income taxes was $72,000,000, paid by 460,170 persons who 
had incomes above the exemption, and whose net incomes 
aggregated $707,000,000. These taxes on the rich and the jiet 
corporations were abolished long ago, most of them shortly 
after the close of the war. They were abolished before the 
public debt was funded by the Eepublicans in such manner 
that the present surplus cannot be used in paying it, except 
by paying a premium to the bond-holders who can be induced 
to surrender their bonds before maturity. If these taxes upon 
the rich had been retained, as well as the high duties on the 
articles of necessary use amongst the poor, the public debt 
w^ould have been paid, or reduced to comparatively insignifi¬ 
cant proportions, and need not have been funded so that its 
jDayment had to be postponed. However, the rich favorites of 
the Republican party had to be relieved from taxes which they 
denounced as odious.” Mr. Mills, in opening the debate 
on the Bill that bears his name, said : 

Upon what economic principle or principle of justice were 
these taxes repealed and the whole burden laid on articles 
going into daily consumption, and which must be obtained 
by the labor of mind and muscle ? 

Was the tax of 3 per cent, on the domestic blanket paid by 
the manufacturer more oppressive then than the tax of 79 per 
cent, on both foreign and domestic blankets paid by the 


308 


SUPERIORITY OF 


manufacturer more oppressive than the tax of 73 per cent, 
on both paid by the consumer ? Was the tax of 3 per cent, 
on women’s and children’s clothing paid by the manufacturer 
more oppressive than the tax of 82 per cent, on both foreign 
and domestic goods of the same kind paid by the consumer ? 
Was a tax of 3 per cent, on railroad companies, banking com¬ 
panies, insurance companies, express and telegraph companies, 
more oppressive than an 88 per cent, tax on woolen shawls ? 
Was a 3 per cent, tax on incomes more oppressive than an 80 
per cent, tax on a woolen shirt ? 

The party then in power certainly thought so, for the taxes 
on wealth are gone, but the war tax on clothing, the war tax 
on food, the war tax on the implements of labor still remain 
with us, and the war against our prosperity, our labor, and 
our commerce is still being vigorously prosecuted—a war that 
is exhausting in its destructive invasions on labor, whether it 
is employed in agriculture, manufactures, commerce, or min¬ 
ing. Every effort that has been made to bring this war on the 
industries of the country to an end and to restore the govern¬ 
ment to the peace establishment has been resisted at every 
step, and so far every effort to end this unjustifiable invasion 
of the rights of the people has been defeated. 

The gentlemen who represent the minority of the Committee 
on Ways and Means boast that they have reduced taxation 
$360,000,000. They point with pride to the splendid column 
which they have erected, but that column has no stone in it 
to tell of their devotion to the masses who live by daily toil. 
It is built of blocks of marble, every one of which speaks of 
favoritism to the wealthy, of special privileges to rich and 
powerful classes. In 1883 they finished this magnificent 
shaft, which they have been for years erecting, and crowned it 
with the last stone by repealing the internal tax on playing- 
cards and putting a 20 per cent, tax on the Bible.” 

The financial policy of the Republican party throughout 
has been favorable to the rich few and burdensome to the 
toiling masses. Its government bonds were issued with the 
express stipulation on their face that the interest zvaspayable 
in com, but there was no such provision with respect to the 
principal. By the settled rules of legal construction the 
principal was payable in lawful money, or government cur¬ 
rency. They had been bought for currency from the Govern- 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


309 


ment, and by every principle of fairness they were payable in 
the same currency. All other contracts providiog for pay¬ 
ment of money were satisfied by payment in currency. The 
farmer and mechanic had to accept currency for their prod¬ 
ucts ; the laborer and soldier had to accept it in payment of 
their wages ; but, in the view of the Eepublican managers, ever 
eager to attach the rich and powerful to their party, this de¬ 
preciated currency with which the bonds had been bought, 
was not fit money to pay the bond-holders. They passed a law 
providing that the principal as well as the interest of the 
bonds should be paid in coin ; and then, to still further favor 
this pet class, they passed an Act demonetizing silver, so that 
gold, then at an enormous premium, was the only coin in 
which the bonds could be paid. They then funded the debt 
so that the bulk of it cannot be paid until the year 1907, and 
boasted of a tremendous financial success because they re¬ 
duced the interest to per cent, on this long loan. By the 
creation of the National Banks, they furnished the people 
with the most satisfactory circulating medium they have ever 
had, but at the price of great and unfair advantages to the 
banks. 

The public lands acquired during Democratic administra¬ 
tions as cheap homes for the millions were legislated away by 
the Republicans to corporations by the millions of acres, and 
allowed to be taken up in enormous tracts by foreign S 3 aidi- 
cates. In all the years of their long administration of the 
government, their policy has been to buy the favor of the 
powerful by grants of the people’s possessions, and to consoli¬ 
date power and property in the hands of the few. Their 
high tariffs have not resulted in furnishing labor with steady 
and satisfactory employment, nor better wages. No doubt 
wages have advanced since 1861, but not as the result of 
high duties on imports. We have seen in the last preceding 
chapter, by the illustration of the chain makers, how wages 
are advanced without reference to the tariff, and we have 
seen how the excessive stimulation of industries draws capi- 


310 


SUPERIORITY OF 


tal and labor from the natural channels of business, resulting 
in depressions and the shutting down of works so that laborers 
are always in a state of uncertainty, and often unemployed. 
Laborers have been compelled to organize as the only means 
of withholding themselves from drifting into a condition of 
absolute dependence ; and while their strikes have no doubt 
sometimes been unwise, and the cause of great distress among 
their families, they had no other means to free themselves 
from the shackles that the Eepublican party has enabled their 
employers to fasten upon them. In his speech on the Mills 
Bill, Mr. McMillan said : 

In the six years from 1881 to 1886 there have been strikes 
in 22,336 establishments. Of these, 16,692, or 74.74 per cent., 
were in the States of New York, Pennsylvania, Massachu¬ 
setts, Ohio, and Illinois, where protection is claimed to have 
wrought such wonders for the laboring man. 

There were lockouts during the same period in 2,182 es¬ 
tablishments. Of these 1,981, or 90.8 per cent., occurred in 
the five States named. The number of employes striking 
and involved was 1,324,152. In addition to these there were 
159,548 employes locked out, 31.22 per cent, of whom were 
females. 

“ Of the 22,336 establishments in which strikes occurred, 
the strikes in 18,342, or 82.12 per cent, of the whole, were 
ordered by labor organizations; while of the 2,182 establish¬ 
ments in which lockouts occurred, 1,753, or 80.34 per cent., 
were ordered by combinations of managers.” 

During the Eepublican period of administration, the antag¬ 
onisms between capital and labor have been carried to ex¬ 
tremes never before witnessed in this country. Actual bloody 
collisions have occurred, and various forms of coercion have 
been adopted and practiced. It is with extreme reluctance 
that capital ever makes any concession to labor, the arrogant 
monopolists insisting upon the right to make both sides of 
the bargain ; and, if the laborers protest, and resort to organ¬ 
ization to secure a fair share of the profits of their productions, 
the policy had been to supply their places with imported con¬ 
tract labor, or to force them into submission by starvation or 


DE3I0CRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


311 


the bayonet. The State militia is usually made up of em¬ 
ployes of capitalists, and their sympathies are usually with 
the laboring men in their strikes and consequent strifes. 
They are reluctant to use the bayonet against their wronged 
fellow-laborers; and hence the demand of capitalists for reg¬ 
ular troops, who are so far removed from the laboring classes 
as to have no sympathy with them. The cry of monopolists 
is for a vast standing army of regular troops to suppress up¬ 
risings of laborers in the assertion of their rights. 

These strikes and lockouts are attributable in a large degree 
to our present system of excessive protection. Of course, such 
things occur in the unprotected industries and in Free- 
Trade England,’’ but that does not alter the fact that exces¬ 
sive protection has attracted capital into industries that are 
operated far beyond the requirements of our country, and 
when an operator has stocked up sufficiently to be able to 
supply his trade for the remainder of the year, he is in a 
position to shut down with advantage to himself, as he there¬ 
by cuts off or reduces his pay roll. In that comfortable posi¬ 
tion, he becomes a gainer by provoking a strike as the result 
of his demand for a reduction of wages. When his stock has 
become exhausted, he can very well afford to resume opera¬ 
tions at the old j)rices ; and tlie laborers whose families have 
reached the verge of want are glad to resume work. It is very 
certain that high duties do not operate to prevent these peri¬ 
odical strifes between capital and labor; for the antagonisms 
between these two classes have never been so frequently ex¬ 
hibited, or carried to such extremities of hostility, as during 
the period of high duties. Labor is always at a disadvantage 
in such contests, because substitutes for the striking laborers 
can nearly always be readily obtained ; and, if not, the cap¬ 
italist can hold out longer than the laborers who have families 
dependent upon their earnings. 

Some of the discriminations of the existing tariff in favor of 
the rich, and against farmers and other laborers, are specified 
in the following extract taken from the Chicago News, to wit: 


312 


SUPERIORITY OF 


'‘Four years ago the Eepublicaos pledged themselves to 
remedy the inequalities in the tariff. Now they are defend¬ 
ing them and are doing all that the most vicious deception 
can do to show the farmer and laborer how he is benefited by 
these inequalities. Here are a few of them which we should 
like some high-tariff organ to explain : The farmer and laborer 
pay an enormous duty on sugar which brings from 4 to 8 
cents a pound, but he can buy jalap and castor oil free of duty. 
He pays 35 cents a thousand duty for the shingles, on his 
house, but a railroad company imports its ties duty free. He 
pays 25 cents a gallon duty on oil to paint his house, but the 
banker’s wife imports attar of roses free of duty. The white 
lead for his paint costs 3 cents a pound for duty, but diamonds 
come in duty free. For his earthenware he pays a duty of 36 
per cent, ad valorem, but down for trimming is admitted free. 
Glass bears an enormous duty, but bamboo canes and parasol 
sticks bear none. Iron plow points are heavily taxed, but 
raw silk is exempt. Horse nails to shoe his mules with are 
taxed 4 cents a pound, but fish plate used by railroad com¬ 
panies pay 1^ cents a pound. The duty on needles is 25 per 
cent, ad valorem, while furs are admitted duty free. For a 
jackknife he pays a duty of 35 per cent., while on a meer¬ 
schaum pipe he pays none. For his cheap kitchen table the 
duty is 35 per cent, ad valorem, but mahogany and rosewood 
come in free. On cotton stockings the duty is 35 per cent, 
ad valorem, but the farmer can import works of art free. On 
blankets the lowest duty is 2 cents a pound, but raw silk is 
free. And so one can go on by the yard contrasting these 
unequal duties. What the rich use is free; what the poor 
cannot get along without boars a heavy duty. In every case 
the legislation is against the laborer and "in favor of the 
wealthy. This is the tariff that the Eepublicans declare they 
will maintain at the expense of free rum.” 

The Eepublican orators and journalists never tire of com¬ 
parisons between the wages and condition of labor in Protec- 
tection America and Free-Trade England ; and, in accordance 
with the easily-applied and brief rule of their iDolicy to claim 
everything,” they unhesitatingly attribute the higher wages 
and better condition of labor in America to the operation of 
the ‘‘ protective system.” The so-called protective system on 
a high scale is in operation in Germany, and on a still higher 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


313 


scale in Eussia, and on a more moderate scale in France ; and 
yet the rates of wages are much higher in Free-Trade England 
than in those high tariff foreign countries ; and higher in Eng¬ 
land under her free-trade policy, than under her former policy 
of protection. It is not the high tariff that makes the United 
States an inviting country for the laborers of Europe. They 
can enjoy the operation of high tariffs without undergoing 
the expense of crossing the ocean ; hut tliere are other real 
and great benefits to be enjoyed in America, which cannot be 
obtained in Europe. We have a vast, fertile and fresh 
country, sparsely populated in comparison with the crowded 
countries of Europe. We have no expensive royal establish¬ 
ments and immense army to consume the earnings of the 
masses. Our institutions are different from those of Europe, 
and afford opportunities for advancement in channels that 
are closed to the European masses. Upon this subject, the 
following extract is taken from the New York Worlds to 
wit: 

We showed before that immigration was vastly greater in 
several of the years of comparatively free trade, under the low 
tariff of 1857, than it was during many years under the pro¬ 
longed war tariff. The same thing is true of wages. These 
have always been higher here than in the old world, alike 
under low tariffs and high tariffs as they would be with no 
tariff. Wages are higher in Massachusetts and Connecticut, 
in the same industries, than ihey are in Georgia and South 
Carolina. They are higher in free-trade England than in pro¬ 
tectionist Germany or Eussia. They are relatively higher here 
in the unprotected industries, compared with Europe, than 
they are in the protected industries. 

To claim for the tariff benefits which are due to the laws 
of nature and of trade, and to our wide-spread and wonderful 
country, with its boundless resources and free institutions, is 
to claim for a statute credit which belongs to the Eepublic, 
and to appropriate to a party the bounties of God and the 
labors of mankind. 

The Labor Bureau is a creation of the Democratic party, 
and a bill to create a Department of Labor passed a Demo- 


314 


SUPERIORITY OF 


cratic house ; but, in the author’s judgment, these beneficial 
acts are insignificant in comparison with the efforts constantly 
made by the Democrats to relieye all classes of people who 
earn their livelihood by toil from the ever j)ressing burdens / 
of class favoritism. The laboring people do not ask special 
legislation in their own interest, so much as they demand ex¬ 
emption from burdens imposed upon them by special legisla¬ 
tion in favor of other classes. What they need, and all they ask, 
is fair play; and this the Democratic party are striving to afford 
by removing the unnecessary burdens with which labor is handi¬ 
capped in the race of life, for the benefit of the favored few. It 
has been shown in preceding chapters that we owe it to the 
Democratic party that we have a vast country extending from 
ocean to ocean, instead of a contracted country lying between the 
Atlantic and the Mississippi; that we are free from a standing 
army and the monarchical establishments which consume the 
earnings of labor in foreign lands ; and that we enjoy the free 
institutions which attract to our shores the monarchy-ridden 
people of Europe. Every human act that has made America 
more attractive to the masses than the monarchical countries 
of Europe has been the work of the Democratic party, and 
that is why the masses naturally ally themselves with that 
party, when they are not deluded or coerced. Its liberal and 
fair policy in treating all classes alike, and showing favoritism 
to none, is the great quality that recommends the Democratic 
party to all classes who earn their livelihood by daily toil. 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


315 


CHAPTER XXL 

DEMOCRACY REVIVED—CLEVELAND’S ADMINISTRATION. 

We have seen in the foregoing chapters that the two great 
antagonistic principles operating upon the administration of 
our government, from the time of its organization, are De¬ 
mocracy and Eederalism. These principles may be designiated 
by other, and, perhaps, more appropriate, names ; but the 
essence of each is the same by whatever name it may be 
known. The essential quality of Democracy is government 
by the people for the benefit of the people at large ; the essence 
of Federalism is government by bosses for the benefit of 
favored classes. Government will always be administered in 
the interest of those who control its officers and public agents ; 
if a king is in control, the chief concern of the administration 
will be the benefit of the royal family ; if, instead of a single 
sovereign, the control is confided to, or usurped by, a number 
of bosses, the administration will be directed in the channel 
of benefit to those bosses, and to the classes who sustain those 
bosses in consideration of special favors granted ; if the people 
are in control, the government will be administered in the 
interest of the people at large, without grants of bounties to 
favored classes. In fact, all government, whether monarchi¬ 
cal, aristocratic or democratic in form, is reduced in practical 
operation to two kinds, viz. : either government by the people 
for the people, or government by bosses for the benefit of 
classes. 

The Democratic party is now, and ever since its organiza¬ 
tion has been, the party of the people. In the language of 
Prof. Johnston, it is the party of dependence upon the 
people, and of consideration for the feelings, and even the 


316 


SUPERIORITY OF 


prejudices of the people.’’ It relies on the capacity of the 
people for self-government, and repudiates the anti-republican 
doctrine that man cannot be governed but by a rod of iron.” 
Eelying upon the people for approval and support, its measures 
have always been framed in the interest, or supposed interest, 
of the people generally, and never in the interest of particular 
classes. Its policy has always been directed upon the prin¬ 
ciple that favors cannot be granted to the few without first 
being taken from the many ; in short, that government favor¬ 
itism to classes involves robbery of the masses. On the other 
hand, the Republican party, like its Federalist ancestor, is and, 
during the entire period of its control of the government, was 
the party of classes, to whom its partisan managers granted 
favors in consideration of votes and money—every one of such 
favors being first taken from the masses. When millions of 
acres of the public lands are granted to corporations, the land 
so granted is taken from the people to whom it belongs. When 
politicians fix excessive rates of duty upon the importation 
of articles of common use and necessity, the home producers 
of such articles become thereby freed from outside competi¬ 
tion, and by combination, excluding competition with each 
other, they put up the prices of such articles upon the con¬ 
sumer to the limit of the excessive duty ; the result being rob¬ 
bery of the people to the extent of the excess beyond the 
margin of a fair profit. The few are thereby enriched at the 
expense of the many ; and the employes of the favored few 
are practically robbed of the privilege of voting as they choose. 
The practice of Republican politicians, as illustrated by the 
existing tariff laws, is simply an easy modification of an old 
monarchical device. A king needing money for his personal 
gratification, which the representatives of the people in par¬ 
liament were unwilling to grant, would arbitrarily sell to a 
rich favorite the right to the exclusive trade in some article of 
necessary use, such as flour. The king received the considera¬ 
tion money, and the monopolist amassed a fortune by extort¬ 
ing excessive prices from the people who were robbed of the 


DEMOCRATIC ADMimSTRATION. 


317 


privilege of buying tlie article from any body but himself. 
The same principle underlies the tariff laws which Republican 
politicians have maintained in the United States for more than 
a quarter of a century. The monopolists can well afford to pay 
liberally for special privileges, in the form of active party 
work, money contributions to funds for bribing voters, and 
the coerced votes of their numerous dependent employes. 
Federalism is selfish, illiberal and unrepublican; it regards 
the masses as instruments to be employed by delusion, bribery, 
favors or coercion, in complying ostensibly with the forms of 
government necessary to the supremacy of its partisans. Boss- 
ism is inseparable from its practical operation ; its party can- 
dates must be machine-made; and its measures must be 
dictated by the classes who profit by them. The people must 
not venture to interfere with the management of the Board 
of Control of the party ; they must accept the candidates se¬ 
lected by the bosses and nominated by party machinery; and 
they must acquiesce in the measures demanded by the power¬ 
ful classes who employ large numbers of voters and supply 
the bulk of the corruption fund. Practical Federalism is a 
simple system of barter and exchange, the contracting parties 
being the politicians, of the one part, and the favored classes, 
of the other part,—the people being left out, although the 
subject matter of contract consists of their property and rights. 
Grants of favors by politicians, always involving robbery from 
the people of the thing granted, go liberally in exchange for 
liberal contributions, active partisan work and coerced votes. 
Such is Federalism, by whatever name it may be called, 
whether practiced by kings under a monarchical form of gov¬ 
ernment, or by party bosses under a government republican in 
form. The king is the boss in the one case, the politician in the 
other ; the principle is the same ; in both cases the masses are 
ignored and robbed, and the classes favored ; and the essence 
of monarchy is practiced alike in governments differing only 
in form and name. 

We have seen in the preceding chapters that the policy of 


318 


SUPERIORITY OF 


Federalism prevailed in the administration of the government 
during the twelve years of its'existence prior to 1801; that it 
was promptly uprooted during Jefferson’s administration, and 
that the policy of Democracy, or government by the people for 
the people, prevailed in the administration of the government 
for a period of sixty years of unparalleled general prosperity, up 
until 1861; that during the long period of Democratic sup¬ 
remacy, favored classes were unknown in the land, labor and 
capital were in substantial harmony, ‘‘ tramps ” were never 
heard of, agriculture, manufactures and commerce were gene¬ 
rally in a thrifty condition, and the administration of the 
government was under the control of a party whose leaders, 
as Mr. Blaine declares, ‘^guarded the treasury with rigid and 
unceasing vigilance against every attempt at extravagance, 
and against every form of corruption ; ” and we have seen, in 
Chapter XV., that Federalism was revived and its policy put 
into active and shameful practice as soon as the Republican 
party gained control of the government in 1861, when extra¬ 
vagance and waste began on a scale never before witnessed by 
our people, attended with monarchical aggressions upon the 
rights of the people and of the States, and with an unpre¬ 
cedented system of favoritism to classes, with consequent 
serious antagonisms between labor and capital—between the 
people and their plunderers. 

We have now to record the revival of Democracy under the 
administration of President Cleveland, commencing March 
Jth, 1885. As already stated in the introduction, there are 
many features of similarity between the public conditions ex¬ 
isting in 1801, when Jefferson became President, and in 1885, 
when Cleveland became President; and there are many 
striking traits of resemblance in the characteristics of the two 
men. Each came into power after a period of arrogant Fede¬ 
ralism, during which classes were favored and the rights of the 
masses ignored; each found all the agencies of the govern¬ 
ment in the hands of partisans of the opposition, who had 
received their positions at the dictation of bosses as rewards 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


319 


for partisan services ; and the advent of each was heralded by 
rancorous personal abuse, as well as confident predictions of 
unspeakable disasters to the country as the result of Demo¬ 
cratic supremacy. In their personal characteristics, each was 
a man of great firmness and wonderful foresight; but the 
most striking and by far the most important attributes, pos¬ 
sessed in equal degree by the two distinguished men, were 
absolute personal integrity and unlimited confidence in the 
honesty and intelligence and governmental capacity of the 
masses. Honest, capable and undesigning themselves, they 
naturally believed that mankind in general possessed similar 
traits, and that they could be depended upon to support and 
defend whatever was right and just between citizen and 
citizen. Each regarded public office as a public trust to be 
exercised only in the interest, and for the benefit, of the 
public ; and each believed that the only true way to make his 
party invincible was by the furtherance of measures of general 
public benefit. Jefferson bravely faced the frowns and de¬ 
nunciations of the Federalists, and trusted the people to sus¬ 
tain him in exceeding his constitutional authority in the 
acquisition of Louisiana ; and he persisted in the embargo 
policy, under the conviction of its wisdom and necessity, 
although it lost to his party electoral votes that had been 
given to him at his second election. Cleveland has resolutely 
used the veto power in the obstruction of measures which he 
honestly believed to be plundering jobs, although he knew at 
the time, as well as any man in the land, that his honest 
adherence to the right would be distorted into the appearance 
of hostility to the soldiers ; and at a time when his re-election 
seemed to be inevitable, if he would simply quietly submit to 
the continuance of a policy that to his mind was manifestly 
detrimental to the public, he bravely ignored self and devoted 
his entire message to the paramount purpose of tariff reform, 
trusting to the capacity of the people to understand the ques¬ 
tion and come to a correct conclusion. On the honest prin¬ 
ciple of strict preservation of the public faith, he vetoed the 


320 


SUPERIORITY OF 


Five Cent Fare Bill, although he knew at the time that 
demagogues would distort his act into a declaration of hos¬ 
tility to the poor, and that it would probably lose him votes 
among the laboring classes. In his letter of acceptance of the 
Presidential nomination, dated August 18th, 1884, he said : 

We proudly call ours a government by the people. It is 
not such when a class is tolerated which arrogates to itself the 
management of public affairs, seeking to control the people in¬ 
stead of representing them. Parties are the^ necessary out¬ 
growth of our institutions ; but a government is not by the 
people when one party fastens its control upon the country 
and perpetuates its power by cajoling and betraying the 
people instead of serving them. A government is not by the 
people when a result that should represent the intelligent will 
of free and thinking men is or can be determined by the 
shameless corruption of their suffrages.’’ 

Every honest citizen will subscribe to this sentiment, which 
could not be better expressed, and which exhibits the implicit 
reliance of its author upon the intelligence and integrity of 
the people, and his hostility to the employment of partisan 
machinery to fasten the control of the government upon 
classes, instead of the masses. In the same letter he said : 

A true American sentiment recognizes the dignity of 
labor and the fact that honor lies in honest toil. Contented 
labor is an elem.ent of national prosperity. Ability to work 
constitutes the capital, and the wage of labor the income, of a 
vast number of our population, and this interest should bo 
jealously protected. Our working men are not asking un¬ 
reasonable indulgence, but as intelligent and manly citizens 
they seek the same consideration which those demand who 
have other interests at stake.” 

This states the whole question involved between capital and 
labor in a nutshell. Laborers ask no favors, but they man¬ 
fully and justly demand that favors shall not be extended to 
other classes, to their detriment; that, in the enactment and 
execution of the laws, ‘‘the same consideration” shall be 
given to the rights of the laboring classes, whose capital is 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


321 


their muscle, as to classes having other interests at stake,” 
whose capital is in manufactories, mines, railroads, banks, 
•and other institutions which it has been the uniform policy 
of Republican politicians to favor, at the expense of labor. 
He understood the position of the meritorious laboring classes 
exactly, when he said, in substance, that all they ask is fair 
play. The only protection they seek, or that their manhood 
would permit them to accept, is protection from the constant 
aggressions and unceasing exactions of the favored classes. 
The letter concludes as follows, to wit: 

I believe that the public temper is such that the voters of 
the land are prepared to support the party which gives the 
best promise of administering the government in the honest, 
simple and plain manner which is consistent with its character 
and purposes. They have learned that mystery and conceal¬ 
ment in the management of their affairs cover tricks and be¬ 
trayal. The statesmanship they require consists in honesty 
and frugality, a prompt response to the needs of the people as 
they arise, and the vigilant protection of all their varied in¬ 
terests. If I should be called to the chief magistracy of the 
nation by the suffrages of my fellow-citizens, I will assume 
the duties of that high office with a solemn determination to 
dedicate every effort to the country’s good, and with a humble 
reliance upon the favor and support of the Supreme Being, 
who, I believe, will always bless honest human endeavor in 
the conscientious discharge of joublic duty.” 

It is no exaggeration to say that when President Cleveland 
entered upon the duties of his exalted office, on March 4th, 
1885, he found the whole operative machinery of the govern¬ 
ment in the hands of partisans, who had gained their positions 
as rewards for party services, and who used them in the inter¬ 
est of their party and of the favored classes who support that 
party by their political work, by contributions to its funds, 
and by the coerced votes of their employes. Many of the 
members of congress, in both branches, were men whose lives 
had been largely devoted to the special interests of corpora¬ 
tions and monopolies, as managers, officers or legal advisers, 
21 


322 


SUPERIORITY OF 


and who had become accustomed to look upon all questions of 
public concern through corporation spectacles.’’ Their only 
plan of benefiting the masses was by stimulating favorite in- • 
dustries, and promoting schemes for the expenditure of the 
public money, under the pretense that such policy develops 
the resources of the country, enlivens business, puts money 
into circulation, and gives employment to labor. They seemed 
to have no comprehension of any plan for promoting the pub¬ 
lic welfare that had not for its primary purpose the advance¬ 
ment of favored classes, to which policy all other alleged pub¬ 
lic benefits were incidental. Their measures of pretended 
public benefit had to be worked out, invariably, through 
grants of special privileges to the powerful classes who sup¬ 
ported their party. The key-note of their policy is that it is 
the duty of the government to promote individual and corpo¬ 
rate enterprises, by grants of some form of bounties to the few 
who engage in such enterprises. This had become the fixed 
policy of Republican statesmanship, and led naturally and 
inevitably to the employment of the machinery of the govern¬ 
ment in the interest of the party that had adopted and prac¬ 
ticed that policy. The people had been taught to look to the 
government as the great Patron of Industry. The policy 
necessarily involves wasteful extravagance, unbounded cor¬ 
ruption, and class favoritism, at the expense of the masses. 
This policy, with its attendent wide-spread evils, had been 
fastened upon the government with a powerful and deadly 
grasp when Cleveland became President. It required a mas¬ 
ter hand to bring it back to the old Democratic condition of 
government by the people for the people, as well as the mas¬ 
culine practice of a statesmanship that ‘^consists in honesty 
and frugality, a prompt response to the needs of the people 
as they arise, and the vigilant protection of all their varied 
interests.’^ 

The new President commenced his administration with a 
personal example of unprecedented industry, absolute inde¬ 
pendence of would-be party bosses, and zealous devotion to 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION 


323 


whatever he believed to he right. Spoilsmen of his own party 
clamored in vain for a speedy wholesale decapitation of Ee- 
publican office-holders. Like his first great Democratic pre¬ 
decessor, he believed that the majority party was entitled to a 
full share in the administration of the government; but 
wherever he turned he found the same monstrous growth of a 
partisan policy, and, like Jefferson under similar conditions, 
he realized the necessity of proceeding with caution. Impa¬ 
tient reformers raised a cry resembling the ^^On to Eich- 
mond ’’ slogan of 1861, and many made haste to declare that 
the new President had no definite policy; ” they would 
have hurried him on to a political Bull Eun. Gradually the 
clamor ceased, as the people came to realize that the American 
people had a President, whose comprehension of official duty 
was broad enough to embrace the whole country and its en¬ 
tire population. They realized that he was a man ; brave, 
honest, capable, and unswervingly devoted to what he believed 
to be right. The people, outside of politicians and their pets, 
were satisfied. There was no parade ; but there was a quiet, 
steady, irresistible advance towards the Democratic goal of 
government by the people for the people. 

The author regrets his inability to furnish his readers a 
complete account in detail of wdiat has been done for the pub¬ 
lic welfare during President Cleveland’s Administration. He 
has been practically without assistance or advice in the prep¬ 
aration of this little volume, and without either time or op¬ 
portunity to obtain many desired details with that degree of 
accuracy upon which he is willing to rely. Enough has been 
obtained to satisfy the author that a complete detail of the 
reforms accomplished in the various departments of the gov¬ 
ernment would make a lengthy and interesting chapter, in 
every way highly creditable to the Administration. 

It has been shown in a previous chapter that the Pension 
Bureau had been permitted to be used as a vote-making ma¬ 
chine under Eepublican administration. All this has been 
changed, and claims are adjudicated upon their merits, with- 


324 


SUPERIORITY OF 


out reference to the politics of the applicant, while the em¬ 
ployes of the office are employed in the. performance of their 
legitimate duties, and are no longer recruiting sergeants for a 
party. 

Assessments for campaign funds upon employes in the gov¬ 
ernment departments are unknown under the present admin¬ 
istration. 

Although lavish expenditures had been made upon our navy 
during Republican administrations, it was ridiculously ineffi¬ 
cient, as appears by the following extract from Secretary Whit¬ 
ney’s report made November 30th, 1885, to wit: 

At the present moment it must be conceded that we have 
nothing which deserves to be called a navy. The highest offi¬ 
cial authority in our service said in 1876 : Hhere is no navy 
in the world that is not in advance of us in regard to ships 
and guns, and I, in common with the older officers of the ser¬ 
vice, feel an anxiety on the subject which can only be appre¬ 
ciated by those who have to command fleets and take them 
into battle/ And so recently as 1883 the same distinguished 
authority stated that it was universally admitted that ‘w^e 
have no navy either for offense or defense.’ 

‘‘The country has expended since July 1, 1868—more than 
three years subsequent to the close of the late civil war—over 
seventy-five millions of money on the construction, repair, 
equipment and ordnance of vessels, which sum, with a very 
slight exception, has been thrown away, the exception being 
a few ships now in process of construction. I do not overlook 
the sloops constructed in 1874, and costing three or four mill¬ 
ions of dollars, and, to avoid discussion, they may be excepted 
also. The fact still remains, that for about seventy of the 
seventy-five millions of dollars which have been expended by 
the department for the creation of a navy, we have practically 
nothing to show.” 

The Quinnebaug was seven years and ten months in build¬ 
ing, and the cost $749,911 ; the Sivatara was two years and 
six months in building at a cost of $614,728 ; the Galena was 
eight years and seven months in building, cost $933,042 ; the 
Marion was over four years in building, cost $728,025 ; the 
Mohican was nearly thirteen years m building, cost $907,799. 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION, 


325 


These were wooden ships of 910 tons, while under the pres¬ 
ent administration the Atlanta, a modern steel ship of 2,000 
tons, was completed in 1886 at a cost of $675,000. Sup¬ 
plies for the navy, with certain specified exceptions, are re¬ 
quired to be advertised for, when the time will j)ermit, and 
the contract awarded to the lowest bidder; but, under the 
law, no j)erson shall be received as a contractor who is not 
a manufacturer of or regular dealer in the articles which he 
offers to supply.” This law was evaded and openly violated 
under Kepublican administrations for the benefit of favorites. 
The manner of evasion is illustrated by the following case: 
In 1883 a purchase of canvas at $61,000 was made from a 
politician of New York, who was engaged in the coal business, 
and neither a manufacturer of or dealer in canvas ; and as the 
emergency purchases were limited to $500, bills were made 
out for this canvas in sums less than $500, some of them dated 
the same day, and the delivery extended over several months, 
and, in that form, the bills were indorsed with the requisite 
^^certificate of necessity” by the proper officer. This same 
favored partisan furnished large quantities of coal at various 
navy yards at $4.50 per ton ; but when Secretary Whitney 
came into office, and began the enforcement of the law by 
throwing open the door to rival bidders, the same politician 
who had been receiving $4.50 a ton for coal, was enabled to 
put in a bid at $2.89, and, being the lowest bidder, he got the 
co)itract. By a complete change in the system practiced by 
his predecessors, which change amounted simply to an honest 
compliance with the laws that had been previously violated or 
evaded, the present Secretary has been enabled to obtain many 
of the naval supplies at little, if any, more than half the 
former cost. 

Substantially the same law with reference to bids for sup¬ 
plies applies to the War Department, and explains the transac¬ 
tion to which Mr. McKinley devotes a page of his speech on 
the Mills Bill, relating to the purchase of 2,000 British blankets 
for the army. The simple answer to the complaint is that tliQ 


326 


SUPERIORITY OF 


law ivas complied with, and the lowest bidder happened to be 
an Englishman. Mr. McKinley assumes that everybody would 
approve an award of the contract to an American bidder, 
although his bid was thirty cents a blanket higher. No doubt 
a Eepublican ofiBcial would have given the contract to the 
Kew York coal dealer, without any bid about it, and regard¬ 
less of the law, at a price high enough to make a reduction in 

the surplus.” 

To make a long story short, the business of the government 
in all its departments, under Democratic administration, is 
conducted upon the same principles of fair dealing that an 
honest man would apply in his own afPairs, or that an honest 
and prudent guardian would apply in dealing with the funds 
and property of his ward. There is no wasteful extrava¬ 
gance, no enriching of partisan favorites at the public ex¬ 
pense. 

A most important work is being pressed by the Democrats 
in the matter of reclaiming public lands that were condition¬ 
ally voted away by the Eepublicans to railroad corporations. 
These land grants were simply enormous, amounting to nearly 
as much as all the lands embraced within the boundaries of 
the original thirteen States. In addition to these land grants, 
the government issued its bonds to the amount of over sixty 
millions of dollars for the benefit of some of these railroad 
corporations, upon which, at the date of President Cleveland’s 
inauguration, there was interest due and unpaid to the amount 
of over forty millions of dollars, after deducting all credits 
for transportation of mails, troops and government supplies. 
These grants were made upon conditions to be performed by 
the several corporations, which have not been complied with 
in many cases, and many of the grants are subject to forfeiture 
for such non-compliance. The Democrats have been pressing 
the subject of these forfeitures, for the purpose of reclaiming 
millions of acres improvidently granted and placed beyond the 
reach of settlers. The Democratic House has passed and sent 
to the Eepublican Senate a bill providing for the forfeiture of 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


327 


upwards of fifty millions of acres, being chiefly as follows, to 
wit: 

Gulf and Ship Island, 652,800 acres in Mississippi. Coosa 
and Tennessee, 14,016 acres in Alabama. Coosa and Chatta¬ 
nooga, 144,000 acres in Alabama. Mobile and Girard, 651,264 
acres in Alabama. Selma, Kome and Dalton, 258,624 acres 
in Alabama. Atlantic, Gulf and West India Transit, 676,000 
acres in Florida. Pensacola and Georgia, 679,680 acres in 
Florida. Vicksburg, Shreveport and Texas, 364,800 acres in 
Louisiana. Jackson, Lansing and Saginaw, 176,256 acres in 
Michigan. Marquette, Houghton and Ontonagon, 294,400 
acres in Michigan. Ontonagon and Brule River, 288,000 acres 
in Michigan. La Crosse and Milwaukee, 195,724 acres in 
Wisconsin. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis and Omaha, 
1,446,400 acres in Wisconsin. Wisconsin Central, 464,480 
acres in Wisconsin. St. Paul, Minneapolis and Manitoba, 
1,113,600 acres in Minnesota. Western Railroad, 243,712 
acres in Minnesota. Southern Minnesota Railroad Extension, 
1,832,115 acres in Minnesota. Hastings and Dakota, 819,484 
acres in Minnesota. Northern Pacific, 36,907,741 acres in Wis¬ 
consin, Minnesota, Dakota, Washington, Montana, Idaho and 
Oregon. California and Oregon, 1,740,800 acres in Califor¬ 
nia. Oregon and California, 2,086,400 acres in Oregon. 
Southern Pacific, 4,147,200 acres in California.” 

During President Cleveland’s administration, the appre¬ 
hensions of the colored people have been completely quieted, 
and they have never been- so highly respected and so pros¬ 
perous. They had long been deluded with the story that 
Democratic supremacy would be ruinous to their rights and 
dangerous to their liberty. The Republican politicians had 
controlled their votes for years by mere ‘‘ scares ” ; and no 
party ever received so large support for such niggardly return 
as the Republican party received from the colored race. That 
party has never trusted the colored people with ofiices of any 
considerable honor or emolument, except in the South when 
it was under the dominion of carpet-baggers. During the 
present administration the negroes have felt for the first time 
that their freedom is perpetual and their citizenship and 
equal rights secure. 


338 


SUPERIORITY OF 


There was a well-sustained apprehension in the North that 
ex-rebels could not be trusted to sustain the government, 
unless they had first given evidence of their loyalty by allying 
themselves with the Eepublican party. President Cleveland 
brought Southern Democrats to the front, and entrusted a 
fair proportion of them with office; and the result has re¬ 
moved all apprehension by proving that the ex-rebels are as 
trustworthy and competent in government positions as any 
other citizens in any part of the country. 

All classes of citizens and all sections of the country have 
been treated with like consideration and fairness under Pres¬ 
ident Cleveland’s administration. The country has been 
prosperous at home and respected abroad. We have main¬ 
tained honorable peaoe with all the world. The great aim of 
the Democratic party now, in their effort to give a prompt 
response to the needs of the people as they arise,” is to re¬ 
lieve the masses from the burdens and drawbacks of class 
favoritism; and the three great measures of reform now being 
pressed for the public welfare are the restoration of honest and 
economical government, the restoration of the public lands, 
and the reduction of excessive import duties upon the neces¬ 
sities of life. 

It is apparent from the review of administrations presented 
in this volume that there is a radical and fundamental dif¬ 
ference between the policy of the Democratic party and its 
opponents. It has been shown that the Eepublican party had 
no sooner been installed in power than the work of extrav¬ 
agance and corruption began, attended with class favoritism, 
aggressions upon the rights of the people and of the States, 
and the practice of the monstrous policy that the offices and 
powers of the government are to be used for the benefit of the 
party in power. Dpon this subject the following extract is 
taken from the speech of Senator Hoar in the Belknap case, 
to wit: 

My own public life has been a very brief and insignificant 
one, extending little beyond the duration of a single term of 


DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATION. 


329 


senatorial office; but in that brief period, I have seen five 
judges of a high court of the United States driven from office 
by threats of impeachment for corruption or maladministra¬ 
tion. ... I have seen the Chairman of the Committee 
on Military Affairs in the House, now a distinguislied mem¬ 
ber of this court, rise in his place and demand the expul¬ 
sion of four of his associates for making sale of their offi¬ 
cial privilege of selecting the youths to be educated at our 
great military school. When the greatest railroad of the 
world, binding together the continent and uniting the two 
great seas which wash our shores, was finished, 1 have seen our 
national triumph and exultation turned to bitterness and 
shame by the unanimous reports of three committees of Con¬ 
gress—two of the House and one here—that every step of that 
mighty enterprise had been taken in fraud. I have heard in 
the highest places the shameless doctrine avowed by men 
grown old in public office that the true way hy which poicer 
should he gained in the Republic is to hrihe the people iviththe 
offices created for their service, and the true end for which it 
should he used, when gained, is the promotion of seffish ambi¬ 
tion and the gratification of personal revenge. 

The last sentence contains the essence of the policy of Re¬ 
publican politicians as practiced during the twenty-four years 
of their administration of the government. Their power was 
maintained by some of the numerous forms of bribery and 
corruption, and used for the benefit of favored classes to the 
detriment of the masses. The Democratic policy of govern¬ 
ment is altogether different, and it looks to the strengthening 
of the party, not by bribery or coercion in any form, but by 
the advancement of measures beneficial to all sections of 
the country and all its inhabitants. 












‘ </ -*j(K 




.f ’'"■ 






5- 

. -'V ;• 


,*’ •' I • .* wr 



:'.-f ^ 








^v 


i>^.<’9l>CA>^«rn^BIMWi‘M:^ C^BH^^^^VnEhL . «. / .ar-' .^ivAO^iV ! 


V A' ’ 





V •: 2 






i 


j 



V 

\\ 








u 




i' 


« 



r I 



/ 



1 






*- 

^-'7'r**',0^ ''®*'‘* -s^ <> ‘''Vr** «( 

o«®^ '^. .1/#. ,<V .o*«- <6 




4 CL • 

-II- O ♦ 

c,^'^ «wyw* - 

J,'' 4 




V' o. 

o . >^Iiy.fe:^^ . V 

* ^ '^. o 

^ W-W^ ■* O* ' — ^ - 

^ ..»* .(y "o, »• ^ 

■>y •‘■jj’" ^ o’^ '^o \iV ^ 

'Kp «^ 

^ 0 ^ 

O aP -tL ► * ^*1 

•* / ^ - 
!, aP .♦«*«'. i’w;»ii* '^6 aP^ 'i'i- 

'^V V<^ J'‘^ . A\\^S.//h.o •: 

4 a ^ x*OvC> ^ ‘ '*y>vLxv * ^ » w**>*Vv^ ** i: tvVvSA ^ ^ 

"wyw* 

’ ♦ o^v JyS-vK •* A» 

‘^T7^*' 0^ '^'L *'«•<•* <v 



• N 0 




« "5 

’bV‘^ .“'^ 

» tt.. 






•C^ "''^' 

' c° .‘' 




'"’* <> .. °-i* ‘^•’°^'* 

V ^ <0^ ^• o^ '*> V »*V'a Cl 


-Lo< 


4°^ 



• xO ^ CV .► 

^' .-?r • 0 o 



'v> v^ * 

t : 

•“ '\ °. 
r« ^iV **, 

jy %, '»•* 

; --Lo? o' 



., ♦ 

<0^ 'IV' 

•■ O'V * A\\m//>) O -5 




4 9. 





4 v' .» ^^i m\jr ^ <iv 

" <G^ 

♦ '‘^ 0^ • 


o V*' 


*•■’•■ \- ' *^* aO'^ ‘ *’^’"- ’ 







♦ ^ • 




^ I 


o • * 


• -^0^ '^bv*' 

; ^<5°^ : 

^ v' ^ «>^ 



•. 

A<^ <‘- 

^•4-^\.'“^>.^>« 

o 


% .* 

♦ '^i •> 

' <^, • 



O*^ , i ' • * *^o 

C;^ O 


o • * 




4* •4^'"\- ■4.^'’ °» 

• * A 'O?^’ &«• 

4> »»-■•. % C°^.‘*‘" 



\ '*^’’' ao'’ V *♦^T^.•\^•»• 

c> , t . O, 



O M 0 


* TLs ^ 

: o< 

: A°^ 

* -h c\ * 

<v ^ 

». ^ . j 

* <?>' 

' ^ : \ 

c.*' ’a> o <///'i5<^^\\r * ^ ' 

!p o M/ ^S.\n ^ A V • 

<A ‘'TT^* .0^ V% 

0° ®o a-4-*’ 






^ '=J<. '<■ • • * a'^ <* *'TV.’ 

** ft ■* . .6 *. * 

o > 




6°^ 


"•<*0 ' * * ° ^'c/^ . . . "**">>* ‘^^’ ‘ 

» • ’1 





<. ‘^t;.* ,0^ - 

. 0^ • " oy 


V * 

LI ^W ^ 



0 ® “ ® ♦ 


V* 

% '•«■>’ J.0 ■ V 

4. C\ *0^ , < • O^ "V 

'• "V ...'j-'*^ .:c<\Vav A^ _’‘i 







